KJ 




■m^ 



Frauds 



OF THE 



University of Notre Dame 



NOTRE DAME), INDIANA 



OR 



HOW THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME WITH 

HER FRAUDULENT DOCTOR'S DEGREES, COURSES, 

ETC., PROSTITUTES THE PRESTIGE, WHICH 

A RELIGIOUS ORDER ENJOYS IN THE 

EYES OF CATHOLICS TO OBTAIN 

THEIR MONEY UNDER 

FALSE PRETENSES. 



BY 



CHARLKS VENZKIANI, A. M., Ph. D. 

(Heidelberg-) 



PRICE 50 CENTS. 



THE LIBRARY OF 
CONGRESS, 

Two CoPiES Received 

AUG. 17 1901 

Copyright entry 

CLASS ^''XXc. N«. 

COPY 8. 



^ ,: 



ee cc c t 



c c c , c c 



PREFACE. 

This work is based chiefly — aUhough not solely — 
on the catalogues of Notre Dame, on an unpublished 
document of this university, submitted to the author- 
ities of the Churchy and on Father Zahm's book 
''Catholic Science and Cathohc Scientists." 

We trust that no reader will suppose that all Cath- 
olic colleges are frauds because our largest Catholic 
university is shown to be a fraudulent institution. 

We are fully aware of the gravity of the charges 
we bring against Notre Dame, and if we have slan- 
dered her, we are ready to suffer the penalty the law 
inflicts on slanderers. 

Notre Dame needs no outsiders to take up her de- 
fence, she has a law school which according to her 
catalogue (see page 136), "is not and cannot be ex- 
celled," therefore she should have the best legal talent 
on her staff, eager to prosecute a slanderer unless the 
proofs of her guilt are so overwhelming that she is 
compelled to confine herself either to ignoring the 
charge, or speaking lightly of it, or entering into per- 
sonalities. 

It is to be hoped that this pamphlet may be of some 
help in directing the attention of Catholics toward the 
pressing need of Catholic higher education. The ef- 
ficient work done by many institutions of learning 
originally founded by non-Catholics with a sectarian 
purpose in view is by far superior to that done by 
Catholic colleges and universities controlled by relig- 



PRKFACK. 

ious Orders. This is due to the fact that these rehg- 
iotts Orders, using their own members to teach, and 
paying all the expenses, enjoy all the profit; hence 
it is not to be expected that they would foster non- 
paying university courses. While it would be 
wrong to say that religious Orders founded colleges 
to make money, it is right to state that they could 
not afford to lose money in the interest of higher ed- 
ucation; therefore, under such circumstances, Cath- 
olic institutions of learning which could compare fav- 
orably with universities like Harvard, Chicago, etc., 
are impossibilites. Wealthy Catholics, knowing that 
the members of such Orders, bound as they are by 
the vow of poverty, could receive only their board 
and clothes, and seeing the stately buildings, are of 
the opinion that such institutions of learning are more 
than self-supporting, hence no munificent gifts are 
bestowed on them. It is highly probable that before 
the close of this century there will be many endowed 
Catholic colleges and universities of the first rank 
with a staff of laymen as professors : then and not 
before will this country be able to judge of the in- 
terest and work of Catholics in the line of higher edu- 
cation. That this pamphlet may contribute to hasten 
that time is the earnest wish of the writer. 



CONTENTS, 



CHAPTER I. 

Summary and Object of This Pamphlet 9 

How Notre Dame decoyed students to her hall 17 

P^rauds of the University of Notre Dame 19 

Fraud No. 1. The three years' post graduate course 

leading- to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 20 

Fraud No. 2. The degree of Doctor of Science 21 

Fraud No. 3. The degree of Doctor of I^aws granted 

only for some remarkable work in law 26 

Fraud No. 4. The degree of Doctor of lyiterature 
granted only to former pupils of Notre Dame for some 
remarkable work in Iviterature or in any other branches 

of the course of Letters 27 

Fraud No. 5. Elective work offered to pupils who wish 
to make a deep study of pure mathematics either to 
become professors in mathematics or to make original 
investigations, with no professor on her staff who could 

be called a mathematician 28 

Fraud No. 6. The Romance L^anguages department 
of the University of Notre Dame. Origin and growth of 
this fraud .,..., 30 

CHAPTER II. 

Analysis of Faculty 32 

Sisters in charge of the Minim department 32 

Brother-Professors 32 

Priest Professors 33 

The inferior quality of the I^ayman Professors proved 
by the remarkable discovery of the President of the 

Board of Trustees of Notre Dame 35 

Types of I^ayman Professors and their salaries 36 

CHAPTER III. 

Wholesale swindling of the University of Notre Dame 39 
Why do Catholics need endowed Catholic colleges and 
universities if our largest Catholic university is able to 

coin money? 44 

How is it that a fraudulent institution like Notre Dame 
became our largest Catholic university? 46 



Some of the causes of the growth of Notre Dame: 

1. Influence of her founder, Father Sorin 46 

2. Influence of St. Mary's Academy 46 

3. Relig-ious influence 47 

4. The beauty of Notre Dame 47 

5. The Ave Maria 48 

6. Hunting- athletes as a bait to attract students.. 48 

7. No unsavory reports circulated through the press 

about Notre Dame 50 

8. Prestige lent to Notre Dame by the hierarchy. . . 50 
Why Notre Dame does not double or treble her actual 

Number of students 51 

CHAPTER IV. 

A brief analysis of the document of the University of 
Notre Dame submitted to the authorities of the Church 
by Father J. A. 2;ahm, in which the University proudly 
acknowledges that the oral and written word of her 
Trustees, President and Faculty is not to be relied on. 

Why Notre Dame had to submit this interesting docu- 
ment 54 

The reason why Notre Dame was compelled in her 
defense to incriminate herself 55 

Breach of trust of Notre Dame toward parents of her 
pupils shown by her document 57 

The charity of which Notre Dame boasts shown to 
consist in her swindling parents out of $6,000.00 and 
pocketing $4,000.00 57 

How much Notre Dame values the services of a very 
competent layman-professor and one utterly unfit to 
have charge of students 58 

Black ingratitude of Notre Dame toward the layman- 
professor who taught her Trustees for the last eighteen 
months of his connection gratis 60 

CHAPTER V. 

Remarks on Father Zahm's Catholic Science and 
Catholic Scientists, a book which makes the Church 
appear a fraud, published, according to the statement in 
his preface, "in response to numerous requests from 
distinguished representatives of the hierarchy" 61 

Two of Father Zahm's blunders contrary to common 
sense and Catholic teaching: 

Blunder No. 1 61 

Blunder No. 2 62 

Father ^ahm's eagerness to prove absurd claims of the 
Church the cause of his errors 63 



A few of Father 2;ahm's blunders in his proof that the 
Church has invariably taken the lead in mathematical 

discovery and development 65 

Blunder No. 1 65 

Blunder No. 2 65 

Blunder No. 3 67 

Blunder No. 4 67 

Blunder No. 5 68 

Blunder No. 6 69 

Blunder No. 7 70 

Blunder No. 8 70 

Father Z^ahm's contradiction in his proof that the 

Sceptre of Natural Science belongs to the Church. . .^ 72 

Father Zahm's blunders concerning- Galileo's achieve- 
ments in his proof that the Sceptre of Astronomy truly ^ 

belong-s to the Church 73 

Blunder No. 1 74 

Blunder No. 2 74 

Some of Father Zahm's blunders in his proof that the 
Sceptre of Physical Science truly belongs to the Church 75 

Blunder No. 1 75 

Blunder No. 2 76 

Blunder No. 3 76 

Blunder No. 4 76 

Blunder No. 5 — Father Zahm's ignorance of the real 

greatness of Galileo 87 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE) CASK OF GAIvII^KO. 

Father Zahm's patent historical lie about the case of 
Galileo 80 

The causes that led to the condemnation of the 
Copernican system 81 

Condemnation of the Copernican system, Galileo's 
duty as a Catholic not to submit to the decree of the 
Holy Office, should have appealed to the Pope 82 

Necessary consequences of Galileo's appeal to the Pope 86 

Galileo's further downfall from cowardly denial to 
perjury 88 

Reasons of the cowardice of Galileo 89 

Did the decree of the Holy Office have any harmful 
influence toward retarding the progress of Astronomy 
among Catholics? 91 

Were not Paul V., Urban VIH. and all subsequent 
Popes, until the decree of the Holy Office, condemning 
the Copernican system was repealed, guilty of laxity in 92 
performing their duty as heads of the Church? 

How Father Zahm's book, "Catholic Science and 
Catholic Scientists", might be used in the future to dis- 
honor the Church and hierarchy of America 94 



SUMMARY AND OBJECT OF THIS 
PAMPHLET. 



About the end of January, 1900, every member 
of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church of America, 
every Trustee of the CathoHc University of Notre 
Dame, was notified of the frauds of Notre Dame Uni- 
versity. These frauds consist mainly in decoying the 
youth to this institution by holding out the induce- 
ment of Doctors degrees and courses which have no 
existence except in the catalogues in which they are 
printed. 

Instead of retracing her steps and acting accord- 
ing to Catholic principles the Catholic University of 
Notre Dame, eyen^ter the authorities of the Catho- 
4- lie Church were notified, continues_heri,Jra_ud, and in 
her latest catalogue* of 1899- 1900 announces a course 
of Romance^ Languages — Provencal, Portuguese, 
etc., without having on her stafif any one to teach it. 

The question arises : "Is it right for our largest 
Catholic university to endeavor to impose upon the 
credulity of the public by making people belie ve that 
degrees are granted and courses are taught in Notre 
Dame when in reality these degrees and courses have 
no existence except in her catalogues?'' 

For instance, she announces a three years' post- 
graduate course leading to the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy; yet nonsuch course ever -existed in Notre 
Dame University. No degree of Doctor of Science 
was ever conferred by Notre Dame on any of her 

*Wlien these pages were written Notre Dame had not issued 
her catalogue of 1900-1901. It advertises the same .cours,e of 
Romance Languages without a professor of" Romance Languages 
on the staff. 



10 

graduates in the course of science for some remark- 
able scientific work, nor does she intend to confer it, 
as no mention is made of such degree in any of her 
EngHsh catalogues. Yet she notifies the Latin Amer- 
icans in her Spanish catalogue of 1899, that such de- 
gree is offered; her object being to show that she has 
on her staff learned and scientific professors of rank 
equal to those of the principal universities of this coun- 
try. It is by making use of these and similar frauds 
that she has succeeded in decoying a large number of 
Latin Americans to her halls. 

Is it right for a Catholic university to cheat the 
public with these and other frauds exposed in the 
present pamphlet? 

It is but just that the ecclesiastical authorities who 
have jurisdiction over Notre Dame should protect 
Catholics from being cheated by a fraudulent Cath- 
olic university, which can impose upon the credulity 
of CathoHcs the more easily, inasmuch as it is 
controlled by a religious Order approved by the 
Catholic Church. 

For this reason this pamphlet is sent to the Papal 
Delegate, to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, and to the 
Bishop of Fort Wayne. The Papal Delegate has full 
jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, over the 
Order of the Holy Cross, controlling Notre Dame. 
The Archbishop of Cincinnati and the Bishop of Fort 
Wayne have only spiritual jurisdiction over Notre 
Dame; but they must certainly be able to find ways 
and means to stop the religious of Notre Dame from 
continuing their fraudulent methods. This is a verv 
important matter. Either the Catholic University 
of Notre Dame is guilty of the frauds exposed in this 



11 



pamphlet and the authorities of the Church should 
put a stop to them, or the University of Notre Dame 
is acting according to Catholic principles and the 
writer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the 
law. 

After exposing the frauds of Notre Dame and 
analyzing her faculty, a chapter is devoted to a brief 
analysis of a document of Notre Dame University 
submitted by Father Zahm, in his capacity as presi- 
dent of the board of trustees, to the authorities of the 
Church, in which Notre Dame proudly acknowledges 
that the oral and written word of her president^ 
chancellor of the board of Trustees, vice-president,' 
director of studies, secretary of the board of Trustees 
— in short, the oral and written word of her Trustees, 
President and Faculty — is not to be relied on. 

However incredible it may appear that the Catholic 
University of Notre Dame should submit to the au- 
thorities of the Church a document in which she 
proudly acknowledges her religious to be such rev- 
erend liars, nevertheless it is true and the document 
is extant. 

The last chapters are devoted to some remarks on 
Father Zahm's "Catholic Science and Catholic 
Scientists," a book which tends to make the Church 
appear a fraud. 

Here we call the attention of the Papal Delegate 
and of such members of the hierarchy, who have juris- 
diction over Father Zahm, to the statement in his 
preface that his book was published in "response to 
numerous requests from distinguished representatives 
of the hierarchy." 

When a priest publishes a book containing patent 



12 



historical lies, absurd claims of the Church, strength- 
ening his proofs with numerous blunders and stating 
in his preface that he published it "in response to nu- 
merous requests from distinguished representatives 
of the hierarchy," such a statement, making arch- 
bishops or bishops responsible for its contents, 
should not be let pass unnoticed by the authorities 
of the Church. 

We do not entertain the least doubt that these 
pages will be the means of putting a stop to the frauds 
of the University of Notre Dame; however, when 
analyzing her faculty, the writer had a higher object 
in view, namely, the improvement of the higher edu- 
cation of our Catholic young men by showing in the 
special case of Notre Dame, the largest Catholic 
university in America, how correct is Bishop Spald- 
ing's statement in regard to our Catholic institutions 
of learning. In his lecture, "Education and the fu- 
ture of rehgion," delivered on March, 1900, from the 
point of 7iew, as he states, of an American Catholic, 
he points out this sad state of affairs : "Our young 
men wdien they leave our schools cease to be self- 
active, and become helpless because we have failed 
to inspire them with a divine discontent, an ever- 
present yearning for higher wisdom and worthier ac- 
tion. If we are to hope for improvement in this all- 
important matter, we must begin by providing our 
colleges, seminaries, universities with a body of thor- 
oughly trained and cultivated teachers." 

The way of providing a university with a body of 
thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers has been 
shown us by the archbishops. Trustees of the Cath- 
olic University of America — a university chartered 



13 



by Pope Leo XIII, and located in Washington, D. 
C, although in the same city is situated the oldest 
Catholic university of the United States, the Uni- 
versity of Georgetown, controlled by the Jesuits. 

The Catholic University of America is nt)t and canr 
iTOt^ be controlled by any religious Order. It has en- 
dowed chairs of $50,000 each, and the archbishops 
are ex-officio the trustees. Her object is to offer only 
post-graduate courses. 

What Catholics need is endowed Catholic colleges 
and universities not controlled by religious Orders, 
doing also collegiate work. If Catholics could only 
be made to realize the importance of the higher edu- 
cation they would not certainly be behind non-Cath- 
olics, whose interest in the higher education and re- 
-hgion is unmistakably shown by the munificent gifts 
bestowed yearly on their denominational colleges and 
universities. It is a shame that we Catholics cannot 
boast of universities _ like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, 
Chicago, Northwestern, etc. 

In this country all our Catholic colleges and uni- 
versities, two or three excepted, are controlled by re- 
ligious Orders, and they should not be censured if 
they pay their layman-professors salaries ranging 
from $200.00 to scarcely above $700.00 a year, unless 
it could be proved that the profit made is such as to 
enable them to better compensate their teachers. In 
case they are able, these religious Orders are profiting 
by the miseries of peo])le to enrich themselves and 
are grievously sinning against the natural law of jus- 
tice and charity so strongly upheld by Pope Leo XIII 
in his encyclical on the labor question. 

Bishop Spalding, in his lecture, _sta_tes that "those 



14 

who hold chairs in our institutions of learning are, 
with few exceptions, still insufficiently remunerated, 
and still look longingly to the time when they shall 
be permitted to take up some other kind of work." 
Bishop Spalding would have been even more precise 
had he stated that those who hold chairs in our Cath- 
olic institutions controlled by religious Orders are so 
insufficiently remunerated that, if they are married, 
they not only look longingly to the time when they 
shall be permitted to take up some other kind of work, 
but they look longingly I'or extra work that they may 
be able to support their families. 

Bishop Spalding rightly states that "those who 
hold chairs in our institutions of learning still lack 
the best pedagogical knowledge and skill, still lack 
thorough acquaintance with the best scientific and 
literary thought of the age.'' 

How could it be otherwise? One cannot expect 
that those who join religious Orders and hold chairs 
in our Catholic colleges and universities are all born 
with the natural gifts necessary to form genuine col- 
lege professors; nor can one expect our talented 
young men to pursue post-graduate studies to fit 
themselves to hold chairs in such Catholic colleges 
and universities where the salaries paid layman-pro- 
fessors are such as to deter them from entering the 
state of matrimony. 

If Catholics wish their sons taught by thoroughly 
trained and cultivated teachers so that when they 
leave our institutions of learning they may not cease 
to be self-active and become helpless — if the number 
of Catholics stated by Archbishop Ireland "fourteen 
or fifteen millions," wish to contribute their share 



15 



of scientific men, — scientific laymen are scarcely to 
be found among Catholics in this country, — the only 
way is to follow the example of the archbishops of 
this country and have endowed Catholic colleges and 
universities like the Catholic University of America, 
which is not and cannot be controlled by any re- 
ligious Order. 



CHAPTER I. 

How Notre Dame Decoyed Students to Her 

Halls, 

After the war of the United States with Spain it 
was natural that Cubans and Puerto Ricans would 
come more in contact with Americans and that many 
would send their sons to be educated in this country. 

Notre Dame, our largest Catholic university, 
availed herself of this opportunity to send a newly- 
printed Spanish catalogue* to the Catholic Latin 
Americans of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central 
and South America, and a large number of these 
Latin Americans flocked to her halls. The result of 
this growth was seen in the large new structure, 
made necessary by the crowding of members of the 
Order from Corby Hall and turning that hall over 
to the students for rooming purposes. This great in- 
flux of Latin Americans can easily be traced to the 
most unbounded confidence Catholics place in the 
word of religious. This is but natural, since if truth 
should depart from the lips of men it should be found 
on the lips of priests, and especially those who belong 
to a religious Order. 

If the Catholic University of Notre Dame can 
show the Latin Americans that she is a great uni- 
versity, it Is quite easy to understand why they be- 
came students of Notre Dame. 

*The catalogue mentioned was printed in May, 1899. No date 
however is to be found on it. 



18 



The best way to prove that she has eminent spe- 
ciaHsts is to mention her Doctors degrees, which ac- 
cording to her Spanish catalogue are conferred only 
on worthy candidates. In order to enhance the value 
of her Doctors degrees these trusting Catholics are 
informed that the principal universities in this coun- 
try have made common cause with Notre Dame, which 
of course, is the leader, in order to keep high the 
standard of the degree of Doctor. 

This unblushing effrontery of the reverend impos- 
tors of Notre Dame University may be seen on pages 
18-19 of her Spanish catalogue, where vv^e read : 
"Notre Dame and the principal universities of this 
country have endeavored to make the title of Doctor 
a degree granted only for some remarkable work, and 
v^^hen the pupil shows that he possesses special apti- 
tude for original research." Her Doctors degrees 
are also to be found on pages 79, 81, 87, no, of her 
Spanish catalogue. 

The fact that Notre Dame does not dare to print 
in her English catalogues such glaring falsehoods, 
which would make her a subject of ridicule to her 
American students, is a sufficient proof not only that 
she is lying, but also that she is fully aware of the 
enormity of her deception. It seems almost incon- 
ceivable that religious, who take a vow of poverty, 
could stoop so low to deceive confiding Catholics and 
thus obtain their money under false pretenses. 

Such religious, instead of being intrusted with the 
education of the Catholic youth, rightly deserve to be 
banished to some uninhabited spot where their pes- 
tiferous breath of untruthfulness could infect neither 
Christians nor Heathens. 



19 

It is to be hoped for the honor of rehgion as well 
as of mankind that the majority of the religious of 
Notre Dame were not aware of such gigantic frauds; 
that the schemers who concocted such a nefarious plot, 
were represented by a small ring which should be 
made an example of by the authorities of the Church 
to deter other reverend hypocrites — if any are to be 
found in our Catholic colleges and universities — 
from following in the footsteps of the largest Cath- 
olic university in America. 

Frauds of the University of Notre Dame. 

The Catholic University of Notre Dame, controlled 
by the Order of the Holy Cross, is guilty of prostitut- 
ing the prestige which a religious Order enjoys in the 
eyes of Catholics, to obtain their money under false 
pretenses, when said university, with the most un- 
blushing effrontery informs the public that the fol- 
lowing courses and degrees are offered : 

I. 

A three years' post-graduate course leading to the 
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

11. 

The degree of Doctor of Science granted only to 
students of Notre Dame who have obtained the de- 
gree of Bachelor of Science in this university and 
have done some remarkable work in any of the 
sciences of the course. 

III. 

The degree of Doctor of Laws granted only for 
some remarkable work in any branch of Law. 



20 

IV. 

The degree of Doctor of Literature granted to for- 
mer pupils who do some remarkable work in litera- 
ture or in any other branches of the course of lit- 
erature. 

V. 

Elective work offered to pupils who wish to make a 
deep study of pure mathematics either to become pro- 
fessors in mathematics or to make original investiga- 
tions, with no professor on her staff who could be 
called a mathematician. 

VI. 

A course of Romance Languages, Provencal, Por- 
tuguese, etc., with no professor of Romance Lan- 
guages on her staff. 

We do not mean to imply that these are the only 
frauds of the University of Notre Dame, but they are 
the frauds we analyze. 

FRAUD NO. I. 

The three years' post-graduate course leading to 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

This fraud is one of the baits employed by Notre 
Dam^e University to allure Latin Americans to her 
halls. Notre Dame does not even mention this post- 
graduate course in any of her English catalogues, 
knowing she would cover herself with ridicule before 
her American students, who are fully aware that she 
does not have such course. In order to better per- 
ceive the fraud Notre Dame practices upon Latin 
Americans we translate the five conditions required 






by her on page 79 of her Spanish catalogue to grant 
this fraudulent Doctor's degree. 

1st. The students must have obtained the degree 
of B. A. or Lit. B. in Notre Dame or any other uni- 
versity requiring the same amount of work. 

2nd. The student must be acquainted with French 
and German. He may enter the first year if unac- 
quainted with those languages, but he cannot enter 
the second year of the course unless he has acquired 
them. 

3rd. No student can obtain such degree unless he 
has pursued this post-graduate course at least three 
years in this university. 

4th. The course consists of one major and two 
minors. The major must include three studies, the 
minors two or one. One of the studies must be Phil- 
osophy, the others are optional, to be chosen the first 
year. They may be selected in Literature, Philoso- 
phy, History, Political Science or some similar 
branches. 

5th. Two months before the final examination the 
candidate must present a thesis bearing on some sub- 
ject of his major, in which he must show special ap- 
titude for original research. The thesis must be 
printed and twenty-five copies must be delivered to 
the Librarian of the University. 

No words are strong enough to stigmatize the vil- 
lainly of those trustees and priest-professors of Notre 
Dame, who, in the garb of religious, wearing large 
crosses on their breasts, do not feel the least scruple 
. to secure pupils on the strength of catalogues which, 
if sent through the mail and the federal authorities 
were aware of the enormity of the frauds they contain, 



22 

would surely be the means of bringing upon them 
the just punishment which is inflicted on those who 
make use of the U. S. mail for fraudulent purposes. 

The worst feature, however, is that such a fraudu- 
lent university is able to secure the highest praise 
from members of the hierarchy. Even after each and 
every member was notified of her frauds we find that 
a Bishop of the Church, the Rt. Rev. J. J. Glennon, 
of Kansas City, Mo., does not hesitate to exhort the 
graduates of Notre Dame to prove themselves worthy 
of their sonship of such fraudulent university, as John 
the Divine was worthy of the sonship of the greatest 
person God ever created "whom all generations shall 
call blessed" !!! This is not only bad taste but if the 
Rt. Rev. Bishop realized what he was talking about, 
which we do not believe, he was guilty of blasphemy. 

We quote the end of his eloquent oration, delivered 
in Notre Dame at the commencement exercises of 
1900, copied from Notre Dame Scholastic, commence- 
ment number, page 615. 

"li, gentlemen, I could point my words with living 
fire, I would cast them forth that they might burn 
in your souls forever, but as I cannot, let me appeal 
to you just once more. Sons of Notre Dame, that you 
walk worthy of your calling. 

Sons of Notre Dame — what a privilege this son- 
ship of yours! In the gloom of Calvary, the dying 
word of the Saviour to His Blessed Mother — our 
Notre Dame in heaven — were: 'Mother, behold thy 
son.' So, tonight, you are pointed out with pride as 
sons of Notre Dame. May you be worthy of your 
sonship as John the Divine was in the long ago! Thus 
shall you cherish your mother, your Alma Mater on 



23 

earth, — proud of her walks and halls, and shrines and 
tlie men and memories that grace and bless them; 
and Notre Dame in heaven shall guide and guard you 
with a mother's care to the end." 

FRAUD NO. 2. 

The Degree of Doctor of Science. 

This highsounding degree is granted only to the 
Latin American graduates of the scientific depart- 
ment who have distinguished themselves by some re- 
markable scientific work. The authorities of Notre 
Dame, whatever be their motives, do not think 
proper to notify the American public that such high 
degree is conferred in Notre Dame; therefore, it is 
not to be found in any of her English catalogues. It 
is only to the Catholic Latin Americans that it is 
granted to know Notre Dame's mysteries concerning 
her Doctors degrees and the conditions required to 
obtain them. 

We do not intend that the American public should 
be defrauded of the flood of light our largest Catholic 
university casts upon her scientific department and 
we translate the precious information concerning 
this degree conveyed to Catholics of Cuba, Puerto 
Rico, Mexico, Central and South America. These 
trusting Catholics are informed on page i8 of her 
Spanish catalogue that ''Notre Dame is justly consid- 
ered to be one of the best institutions of learning,'' 
that "the authorities o fNotre Dame have spared no 
effort to secure competent and experienced profes- 
sors, and they have good reasons for congratulating 
themselves with their success on this point." More-" 
over (see page 83), "the college of Science has many 



24 

eminent professors.'^ The Latin Americans are in- 
formed on page 83 that for Chemistry and Mineral- 
ogy alone Notre Dame has ten different laboratories, 
large, well ventilated, each one able to accommodate 
from twenty-five to seventy-five pupils. Notre Dame 
does not state how many laboratories she has for the 
courses she offers in Botany, Geology, Zoology, 
Metallurgy; this is left to the fertile imagination of 
Latin Americans. 

What is rather surprising is that this university, 
with so many different laboratories and granting the 
degree of Doctor of Science, has not one professor 
nor one instructor in her catalogues to teach either 
Mineralogy, Botany, Geology, Zoology, Metallurgy. 
There is no list of professors in her Spanish cata- 
logue. It would be useless printing, for have not 
these trusting Catholics been informed that Notre 
Dame has many eminent professors in her scientific 
courses? 

The Catholic University of Notre Dame certifies 
it, her word is sufficient, as to the Latin American 
sola fides sufificit — "faith alone is sufficient." 

The most remarkable fact, however, is, that Notre 
Dame can turn out Bachelors as good (at least ac- 
cording to her catalogue) as the Doctors of univers- 
ities like Harvard or Chicago, because her Bachelors 
of Science, as she states on page 87 of her Spanish 
catalogue, have already been fitted to be professors. 
Notre Dame does not inform. Latin Americans 
whether these Bachelors, fitted to be professors wheit 
they have done some remarkable work on scientific 
topics, will have to submit their great productions to 
the many eminent professors of her scientific depart- 
ment or whether the fame of them will reach Notre 



25 

Dame and she will proudly send them her degree of 
Doctor of Science. 

Happily the solution of this difficult problem has 
been given by Bishop J. J. Glennon, who, in his ora- 
tion, thus addresses the graduates : ^'But to you es- 
pecially, gentlemen, graduates, does Notre Dame, 
your Alma Mater turn with no mistrust tonight. You 
go forth, but you bring with you the name and the 
principles and the honor of your mother. Courage, 
then! Why should you fear? Fortified as you are 
by the strength of faith, holding in your hands the 
torch of knowledge, animated with the spirit of Notre 
Dame, your future should be as bright, as useful, as 
successful, as even your best friends could wish it to 
be. In truth I believe your lot is an enviable one; 
for if we are to reason from the experience of the 
past, the future 3^ears present opportunities and ad- 
vantages that overpower us by their very magnifi- 
cence. Look at what science alone has done for you. 
It has contributed inventions which would have 
seemed to your progenitors as wild as the wings of 
Daedalus or the talisman of Abaris. To you the 
earth is daily revealing new mines of gold and the 
heavens vouchsafing" new stars of intelleqtual light. 
Would it not be strange, nay criminal, if you should 
resign a heritage so glorious into hands unworthy, 
and you yourselves be crowded into oblivion ? I have 
no excuse for the graduates (and I fear there are 
some) who, like Irving's ship, go out to sea and -are 
never heard of more; who step down from the white 
light of graduating day to obscurity. Gentlemen, we 
want to hear from you again." 

From this we infer that Notre Dame turns with 
no mistrust to her Latin American Bachelors, who, 



26 

holding in their hands the torch of knowledge, will 
not be crowded into oblivion; Notre Dame will hear 
from them again; their remarkable scientific works 
will make them famous in this country and Notre 
DamxC will proudly send them her degree of Doctor 
of Science, a degree not yet offered by her to her 
American Bachelors of the United States. 

FRAUD NO. 3. 

The degree of Doctor of Laws for some remarkable 
work in Law. 

In the next edition of his great work "The Amer- 
ican Commonwealth," Mr. Brice, when he speaks of 
the extraordinary excellence of many of the law 
schools of America, should make special mention of 
the law school of the University of Notre Dame, be- 
cause, according to her catalogue (see page 134), 
"it is believed that nowhere in the country is the 
course in Law m.ore comprehensive, thorough and 
practical than in this university," (136) "It is not 
and cannot be excelled." In one respect the law 
school of Notre Dame is by far superior to the many 
law schools of this country, to whose extraordinary 
excellence Mr. Brice attributes the high attainments 
of American lawyers — the number of professors. If 
we look on page 7 of her latest catalogue, 1900, in 
the Hst of the professors of the Faculty, there is but 
one professor of law, who, on page 130 of the same 
catalogue, is styled Dean of the Law department. 
There are also on the same page names of professors 
who are not to be seen teaching* in her law school. She 

*Tlus is true in reference to tlie catalogues previous to that of 
1900-1901. We could not state positively whether this statement 
holds in regard to the last. 



27 . 

devotes twenty-five pages of her English catalogue 
to explaining her course in law, which "is net and can- 
not be excelled." The degrees offered are mentioned 
but not the degree of Doctor of Laws granted only for 
some remarkable work in any of the branches of the 
law. This degree is not to be found in any of her 
English catalogues. 

Notre Dame might perhaps have scandalized her 
American students had she made such a statement 
because it is well known in Notre Dame that her de- 
gree of Doctor of Laws has been granted also to peo- 
ple who do not have the least knowledge of laws and 
who certainly never did any work in law. 

The Latin Americans are not aware of this fact and 
in order to be consistent and show the excellence of 
her law school the same high-sounding degree of 
Doctor should be granted as in the school of Arts, 
Science and Literature. What would be the use of 
stating on page no of her Spanish catalogue that 
courses are given by professors and instructors of her 
law school as w^ell as by experienced lawyers and 
graduates if this great number of teachers if not 
capable of granting an LL. D.? Whatever ma}/ be 
the faults of the reverend impostors of Notre Dame, 
we must acknowledge there is some consistency in 
their cheating. 

FRAUD NO. 4. 

The degree of Doctor of Literature granted only 
to former pupils of Notre Dame for some remarkable 
work in Literature or in any other branches of the 
course of Letters. 

As long as the University of Notre Dame does not 



28 

mention this degree in any of her EngHsh catalogues 
published before and after her Spanish catalogue, in 
which the degree of Doctor of Literature is offered 
on pages 19 and 81, this Catholic university can rightly 
be branded as a fraudulent university that makes use 
of fraudulent degrees which she neither confers nor 
intends to confer, in order to decoy Latin American 
students to her hall and thus obtain their money un- 
der false pretenses. 

FRAUD NO. 5. 

Elective work offered to pupils who wish to make 
a deep study of pure mathmetics, either to become 
professors in mathematics or to make original inves- 
tigation, with no professor on her staff who could be 
called a mathematician. 

On page 40 of her Spanish catalogue "elective 
courses are offered to pupils who wish to make a deep 
study of pure mathematics, either to be fjtted to be- 
come professors or to make original researches." It 
is not necessary to discuss the course offered; it is 
sufBcient to state that the making of the list of the 
elective courses was intrusted to a professor of the 
faculty of Notre Dam.e who inserted in this list the 
work of Dr. Craig on Differential Equations, a book 
the professor acknowledged he had never seen nor 
read, but thought it should be inserted, as he had seen 
it in the catalogues of some of the best universities ! ! ! 
In the list of elective courses Theory of Functions is 
not to be found, and one could no more understand 
Dr. Craig's book without the knowledge of Theory 
of Functions than one could understand Shakespeare 
in English without a knowledge of the language. 



29 

It is true, Notre Dame succeeded in deceiving- a 
layman-professor by making use of tlie word "chairs 
of mathematics," but a simple inspection of the 
courses given is more than sufficient to convince the 
most skeptical that these chairs of mathematics are 
simply frauds. The priest-professor, who, according 
to the catalogue, holds the chair of mathematics in 
Notre Dame, teaches only in the preparatory depart- 
ment like his colleague, the brother-professor, in 
charge of mathematics. An instructor teaches solid 
geometry and freshman algebra. A professor of en- 
gineering is intrusted with trigonometry and ele- 
mentary algebra, the professor of history and political 
economy has charge of elementary analytic geometry 
and calculus. There are no other professors of pure 
mathematics in Notre Dame; therefore, when this 
Catholic university informs Latin Americans that 
courses are offered to students who wish to be fitted 
to become professors or make original investigations, 
she is practicing fraud upon them. Besides, her pres- 
ident has no hesitation in stating that he does not wish 
to have courses in the higher mathematics taught in 
Notre Dame because the higher branches of mathe- 
matics do not pay. 

This is indeed gratifying to those Catholics who 
are desirous of seeing our largest Catholic university 
offer courses as varied and thorough as those of non- 
Catholic universities. 

A Catholic university that values the teaching of 
the higher branches of mathematics inasmuch as it 
enriches the Order of the Holy Cross!!! 

The worst feature, however, is that Notre Dame, 
in order to obtain the money of Latin Americans, 



30 

does not blush to state that students may be fitted in 
her haUs to become professors or make original re- 
searches in mathematics. When we consider that 
such fraud is perpetrated by men who make a vow of 
poverty in order to follow more closely in the foot- 
steps of our Lord, we cannot help from exclaiming, 
"verily, covetousness is the root of all evil.'' 

FRAUD NO. 6. 

The Romance Languages department of the Uni- 
versity of Notre Dame. Origin and growth of this 
fraud. 

In 1896, Notre Dame engaged a layman-professor 
to teach particularly French and such classes as could 
be given him until a vacancy would occur in such of 
her departments as would best suit him, because, as 
he was informed by Notre Dame, her chairs of math- 
ematics were well filled just then. The teacher en- 
gaged was recommended by professors of Romance 
Languages, their endorsement opened the eyes of 
this university, and she perceived that she was not 
keeping abreast with the principal universities, since 
she was lacking in her catalogue a professor intrusted 
with the teaching of Romance Languages. 

In order to fill this void Notre Dame made it 
known through the press that she had secured a most 
valuable acquisition in the person of the professor 
she had engaged to hold the chair of her Romance 
Languages department. Thus suddenly, without 
warning, a professor engaged to teach particularly 
French and such classes as could be given him, un-' 
til a vacancy occurs in any of the departments that 
best suits him, found himself advertised as the head 



31 



of the Romance Languages department of the largest 
Cathohc university in the United States!!! 

When in time the professor perceived that the only 
object of the University of Notre Dame was to show 
that she had a professor and a department of Ro- 
mance Languages, he did not hesitate to state, in a 
Faculty meeting, that as the words "Romance Lan- 
guages" were not to be found in the letters of the uni- 
versity when engaging him, they should be stricken 
out from under his name in the catalogue, and as there 
was no intention on the part of the university to have 
such branches taught as Provencal, Portuguese, 
Pcalian, etc., lie moved that these courses should be 
stricken out from the catalogue. 

Six weeks later this professor of Romance Lan- 
guages received a letter from Notre Dame, dated May 
17th, in which he was notified that his services would 
not be needed after June 15th. We do not wish to 
insinuate that his dismissal was due to his freedom 
of speech in a Faculty meeting. 

If we look in her latest catalogue, 1899-1900, we 
do not see in the list of her professors any one in- 
trusted with Romance Languages; we do not see that 
the chair is declared vacant^ but we see a full course 
of Romance Languages, Provencal, Portuguese, Old 
French, etc. Thus does the Catholic University of 
Notre Dame cheat the pubHc by advertising a Ro- 
mance Languages department, when in reality she has 
no professor. 



CHAPTER 11. 



Analysis of Faculty* 

Sisters in charge of the minini^^ department. 

The sisters who teach and take charge of minims 
ranging from four or five years upward are by far 
in their Hne the best teachers of the University of 
Notre Dame. They know how to cuUivate the minds 
and hearts of their young pupils and also how to win 
their affections. They rightly deserve the highest ap- 
preciation for their efficient work. 

Brother^Professors. 

The brother-professors of the Order of the Holy 
Cross, who teach many boys at Notre Dame, are so 
proficient in knowledge that they could not be ad- 
mitted to the second of the three years' preparatory 
course of this university. In many non-Catholic uni- 
versities there are preparatory courses, but the pro- 
fessors are, as a rule, college graduates ; here in Notre 
Dame, however, we are confronted with the anomaly 
of brother-professors who could not even be admitted 
to the second of the three years' preparatory course 
to enter the college. 

Such an anomaly must be explained, because it is 
something inconceivable to the public outside, and 
yet the reason is very simple. There are "brothers" 
who. look after the cattle, others till the ground, etc., 

*Names of minims are found in the list with tlie university stu- 
dents in tier catalogues. 



33 



and others are utilized in the university and in other 
colleges of the Holy Cross, as professors. 

Suppose these brother-professors were taught alge- 
bra, geometry, Latin, Greek, the rudiment of some 
science, literature, they might, perhaps, think them- 
selves fitted to earn their living in the world, and yield 
to the temptation of exchanging the safe harbor of a 
religious life for the stormy ocean of the world. By 
so doing the Order would lose the brother-professor 
and his education; therefore, the surest way, both for 
the spiritual welfare of the brother-professors and the 
temporal welfare of the Order is, that brother-profes- 
sors be taught enough to be used as professors in the 
colleges and university of the Order of the Holy 
Cross, but not enough to earn their living as teach- 
ers in the world. ^ 

Priest^Professors* 

The priest-professors of Notre Dame University 
are members of the Order of the Holy Cross. As 
may be expected, only a very small number of those 
who join a religious Order are endowed with all nat- 
ural qualities indispensable to form a genuine uni- 
versity professor. In former times the priest-profes- 
sors were educated in Notre Dame, but several years 
ago the Order of the Holy Cross wisely decided to 
send their future priests to the Catholic University 
of America, so that they might receive a better edu- 
cation in secular branches, together with their theo- 
logical studies. It is for this reason that the Order 
of the Holy Cross purchased grounds and erected 
a building in Washington, D. C. Thus, Notre Dame 
acknowledges that her university is not advanced 



34 



enough to teach her future priests, although in order 
to decoy students to her halls she takes precedence 
over the principal universities of this country and as- 
serts, on page i8 of her Spanish catalogue, that "she 
is justly considered one of the best universities." 

The priest-professors teach whatever branches they 
are ordered to teach and give five classes daily, un- 
less otherwise engaged, just like their colleagues, the 
brother-professors. In order to give an adequate 
idea of what constitutes a ''chair" in this university, 
we analyze the chair of mathematics, held by a priest- 
professor. Notre Dame prides herself (page 40 of 
her Spanish catalogue) on "offering elective courses 
to her pupils who wish to fit themselves to become 
professors in pure mathematics or to pursue original 
research." One is naturally inclined to bow before 
the learned priest-professor who fits pupils to become 
professors or leads them in the abstruse path of the 
upper regions of pure mathematics. Alas, for the 
greatness of Notre Dame University and the honor 
of the Order of the Holy Cross! This eminent priest- 
professor holding the chair of mathematics in the 
largest Catholic university in America could not even 
be intrusted with the teaching of the beginners of the 
collegiate course and his sphere of teaching pure 
m.athematics, like that of his colleagues the brother- 
professors, has been wisely confined to the lower 
branches of mathematics of the preparatory course. 
It would be simply preposterous to suppose that 
the priest-professors of Notre Dame, the colleagues 
of the eminent mathematician above mentioned, could 
sit as competent judges of the remarkable produc- 
tions required to worthily confer on the graduate the 



35 

highest degree a great university can bestow — the de- 
gree of Doctor. 

While we find no fault with the priest-professors 
of the Holy Cross who, In obedience to the orders 
of their superiors, are willing to become university 
professors, although, as a rule, destitute of all qual- 
ities necessary, we have no objection to state that 
they would appear in the light of ridiculous pretend- 
ers if they thought themselves competent to grant 
Doctors degrees for remarkable original research. It 
is only eminent specialists who could -sit as compe- 
tent judges, and these are not to be found among the 
priest-professors of Notre Dame. 

Layman^Professofs of Notre Dame, 

The mferior quality of the layman -professoj's 
■proved by the remarkable discovery of the President 
oj the boai'd of Trustees of Notre Dame. 

Father Zahm Is credited with a discovery by which 
we may infer that Notre Dame is a university of the 
lowest rank compared with non-Catholic universities. 
This great discovery may be read In a Special Corre- 
spondence of the Chicago "Record," headed, "For 
Catholic Students, Notre Dame, Ind., Feb. 26, 1899, 

"The zeal displayed by the Very Rev. J. A. Zahm, 
provincial of the Order of the Holy Cross, during the 
vear that he has been at the head of his Order, is 
gratifying to the great number of Catholics who are 
desirous of seeing Catholic educational Institutions 
offer courses as varied and thorough as those of non- 
Catholic colleges and universities. He has realized 
that competition In brains Is a reality; that the insti- 
tution that offers the largest salaries gets the b':st 



36 



teachers and that a competent facuUy and modern 
equipment sweU the class-rolls." 

Father Z'ahm's discovery that the institution that 
offers the largest salaries gets the best teachers would 
indeed be gratifying to Catholics who are desirous of 
seeing Catholic educational institutions offer courses 
as varied and thorough as those of non-Catholic col- 
leges and universities, were it not that the salaries 
pjM by Notre Dame are a mere pittance compared 
with the salaries paid by non-Catholic colleges and 
universities, as a consequence the teachers thus se- 
cured must necessarily be of the most inferior kind, 
according to Father Zahm's discovery. 

Types of Layman^Professors and Their 
Salaries, 

There are three types of layman-professors, stu- 
dent-professors, graduate-professors and perma- 
nent-professors of the staff. 

The student-professors teach for their board and 
tuition. It would not be worth while to mention the 
salaries of the graduate-professors. The permanent- 
professors, the pillars of the university, receive a sal- 
ary ranging from four hundred to scarcely over seven 
hundred dollars a year.* An exception should be 
made in favor of the professor of English literature. 



*In case that any layman-professor succeeded in obtaining a 
higher salary we are ready to inform the public how much more 
he receives. It goes without saying that the authorities of our 
hirgest Catholic university are such experts in lying that any 
official notification in matter of salaries coming from such re- 
ligious impostors is not to be relied on, because in their interest 
they would have no objection to lie. For instance we read in 
one of her official communications that $600 is higher than the 
university ever gives for the first year and it was given only "in 
view of the distance and circumstances in the case," however it 
could easily be shown that Notre Dame was lying. What her 
interest was in thus lying is foreign to this subject. 



37 



1 he former professor, Maurice Francis Egan, re- 
ceived a fee of one thousand dollars a year, and the 
present professor receives one thousand, five hun- 
dred a year. It would be a great mistake to suppose 
that this large salary, according to the view of the 
university, given to the professor of English litera- 
ture, is due to the great appreciation Notre Dame 
has for English literature. It is due to this : The uni- 
versity publishes a weekly paper, the "Scholastic," 
which has a large circulation, and helps advertise the 
imiversity. The '"Scholastic" is written by the stu- 
dents, hence the necessity of a conipetent professor 
to drill the pupils in writing themes. As the Order 
of the Holy Cross had no member capable, on hand, 
a layman-professor was indispensable. ^ 

Were it not for the importance of making a good 
appearance before the public, if it were solely, for the 
sake of teaching English literature to the pupils of 
Notre Dame, this layman-professor would be replaced 
by a member of their Order or, in case his services 
were retained, he might possibly receive a salary of 
six hundred a year. ^ 

This is clearly proved by Notre Dame's document 
submitted by Father Zahm to the authorities of the 
Church, in which it is stated of one of her layman - 
professors, whose acquisition the university adver- 
tised most extensively when she secured his services, 
that if he were very competent in teaching his services 
might possibly be worth six hundred dollars a year 
to Notre Dame. Since Notre Dame pays salaries 
smaller than those of any non-Catholic college or uni- 
versity, according to Father Zahm's discovery, she se- 
cures the poorest teachers ; therefore, although she is 



38 



the largest Catholic university, instead of taking prece- 
dence over the principal universities of this country 
■ she should be ranked among the lowest educational, 
institutions of the United States. 

It could not be expected that these poorly-paid 
layman-professors should have pursued post-gradu- 
ate studies to fit themselves to hold chairs in a uni- 
versity like Notre Dame. It would be simply ab- 
surd to suppose that these pillars of the university, 
with salaries ranging from four hundred to 
scarcely above seven hundred a year are the eminent 
specialists, competent judges of the original re- 
searches which, according to her catalogue, are re- 
quired by Notre Dame to obtain her Doctors degree. 



CHAPTER III. 



Wholesale Swindling of the University of 
Notre Dame. 

We have already stated that religious orders are 
not to be censured if they pay beggarly salaries to the 
layman-professors of their Catholic colleges and uni- 
versities unless it can be proved that the profit they 
make is such as to enable them to give a better com- 
pensation. In the special case of Notre Dame we in- 
tend to prove that taking into account the amount of 
tuition she charges her pupils, she does not need to 
pay her layman-professors such beggarly salaries. 
This being proved, it follows that either the Uni- 
versity of Notre Dame succeeds in engaging compe- 
tent layman-professors at the lowest salaries by taking 
advantage of their adverse circumstances, and in this 
case she is swindling them out of their fair share of 
the money paid by parents for the tuition of their sons, 
or she engages an inferior quality of layman-profes- 
sors in order to save that money, and in this case she 
is swindling the parents of her pupils, who pay for 
their sons' tuition believing Notre Dame would secure 
able and experienced professors. 

What parents pay for their sons' tuition may be 
seen on page 2"] of her catalogue, 1899- 1900. "The tui- 
tion fee is $100.00 per scholastic year, which is accepted 
as an entirety for the year, not to be refunded in 
whole or in part under any circumstances except in 



40 



case it seems to be expedient for the student to go to 
his home because of severe or protracted illness." Be- 
sides this $100.00 tuition fee the pupil is charged 
$60.00 for instrumental music, $30.00 for use of piano, 
$40.00 for vocal culture, $30.00 for violin, guitar, man- 
dolin, $25.00 for artistic drawing, $40.00 for applied 
electricity, $30.00 for practical mechanics, $25.00 for 
phonography, $25.00 for telegraphy, etc., etc. 

The University of Notre Dame has over 800 stu- 
dents, therefore she should receive $80,000. Includ- 
ing the receipts for extra studies, matriculation fees, 
etc., the sum she receives for tuition alone should be 
in the neighborhood of $100,000.00. Her teaching 
staff, including brother-professors and student-profes- 
sors, numbers about sixty; therefore, after deducting 
a good allowance for the expenses of heating, repair- 
ing, etc., it would appear that the university could 
well afford to pay a salary of at least $1,200.00 a year 
to each of her sixty teachers. The Order of the 
Holy Cross is not satisfied with the amount of tuition 
saved by her thirty priest and brother-professors who 
receive only their board and clothes, but reaches out 
and grabs the lion's share of that part of the tuition 
which should rightly be paid to her thirty layman- 
professors. The salaries paid to Notre Dame's thirty 
layman-professors, including her $1,500.00 professor 
of English Hterature, are in the neighborhood of 
$12,000.00, and this sum is more than covered by the 
profit Notre Dame makes from the sale of books, 
paper, pens, ink, beverages, candy, fruit, tobacco, etc.^ 

The salary of the sisters, the teachers of the 



*The boai'd and room of the unmarried layman-professors miglit 
possibly cost Notre Dame $2,500.00 a year. 



41 

minims, is about $200.00 a year, and the total amounts 
to about $1,400.00, a sum many times covered by the 
profit the university makes from the sale of such arti- 
cles as shoes, clothes, mending shoes, etc. 

The Catholic University of Niagara charges $200.00, 
of which $100.00 is for tuition and $100.00 for board, 
etc. The University of Notre Dame charges $300.00, 
of which $100.00 is for tuition. If the Catholic Uni- 
versity of Niagara can board her students for $100.00 
per scholastic year, one can imagine the profit Notre 
Dame makes by charging twice as much, besides the 
profit she makes off the large number of students who 
pay $50.00 extra for a room in Sorin Hall and $80,00 
extra for a room in Corby Hall. In Corby Hall alone 
there are one hundred and twenty-five rooms at $80.00 
each, bringing $10,000.00. 

Thus we see that while non-Catholics lavish money 
to support the higher education of their well-endowed 
denominational universities, our largest Catholic uni- 
versity is able to coin money on her education, not for 
herself, but for the Order of the Holy Cross, which 
controls her. 

Of course, the layman-professors of Notre Dame, 
as a rule, think they deserve a better salary than the 
mere pittance they receive, consequently they infer 
they are unfairly dealt with; but, afraid a worse fate 
might overtake them if they shook the dust of Notre 
Dame from their feet, in their helplessness cannot har- 
bor the kindest of feelings toward this Catholic insti- 
tution. On the other hand, the authorities of Notre 
Dame entertain a low opinion of the abilities of lay- 
man-professors who sell their services for the mere 
pittance they pay them, and think that if these layman- 



42 

professors could do better in the world they would cer- 
tainly not remain connected with Notre Dame, and 
therefore, in their opinion, Notre Dame is the best 
place these layman-professors could find. 

The authorities of Notre Dame — followers not only 
of the precepts, but also of the counsels of the Gospel 
— think they are not only just, but charitable and 
even generous toward their layman-professors, some 
of whom they consider an incubus not deserving their 
salary and whom they employ to teach students out of 
a sense of charity. This is why the Order of the Holy 
Cross decided to rid the university of all layman-pro- 
fessors except a few, and replace them as soon as pos- 
sible with members of their order. This is not to be 
applied to her student-professors, who teach for their 
education, because they are cheaper as teachers than 
members of their order — priests and brother-professors 
who require also their clothes. We do not like to 
dwell on a rather delicate matter. These layman-pro- 
fessors with such beggarly salaries are afraid to enter 
the state of matrimony. They have before their eyes 
the 'miserable plight of their colleagues, the married 
professors, who are always looking longingly for extra 
work to help support their families ; and while we wish 
to suppose that this enforced state of celibacy may be 
conducive to sanctify their souls, nevertheless as this 
is due to merely worldly motives, and as such strongly 
condemned by such a deep thinker as St. Alfonso De 
Liguori, the Order of the Holy Cross, which is re- 
sponsible for this sad state of affairs, is, whilst laying 
up a treasure of gold in this world ,also laying up a 
treasure of wrath in the world to come. 



43 

We have supposed that these underpaid layman-pro- 
fessors are either incompetent or have been engaged 
at such low salaries by this university taking advan- 
tage of their circumstances, but what if fraudulent 
methods had been used by Notre Dame holding forth 
the most seducing promises of chairs such as have no 
existence in her university, or of future fair salaries 
which this Catholic university unblushingly acknowl- 
edges to the authorities of the Church she never in- 
tended to grant ? What if the policy and diplomacy of 
Notre Dame when engaging a layman-professor is to 
give him as little as possible for the first year, prom- 
ise a great deal in the future and adduce such pre- 
texts — as for instance the support of the missions in 
India — in order not to perform what has been held 
out to him ? 

We have supposed that the layman-professors were 
at least paid the beggarly salaries agreed upon, but 
what if the Catholic University of Notre Dame should 
stoop so low as to order, for instance, a layman-pro- 
fessor to discontinue teaching, in the middle of the 
scholastic year, a yearly class, thus robbing her pupils 
of the instruction due to them and try to rob the pro- 
fessor, a married man with a family, of two-fifths of 
his salary of six hundred dollars a 3^ear, because he 
had been ordered to drop one-fifth of his recitations? 
What if this layman-professor would not subscribe to 
this unheard of roguery of Notre Dame, and Notre 
Dame in the fond hope of starving him into submis- 
sion withheld his salary nearly six months? One 
might think that such villainies could only happen in 
a den of robbers, but not in a Catholic university con- 
trolled by the Order of the Holy Cross, yet all this 



44 



and worse did happen in this CadioHc university 
which professes to teach CathoHc principles. 

We are sorry to state that it is not only heartless 
and soulless corporations that take advantage of the 
miseries of men to defraud them of the fair share of 
profit their labors should bring them, but also a re- 
ligious Order like that of the Holy Cross controlling 
the largest Catholic university in America; we are 
sorry to state that it is not only to heartless and soul- 
less corporations, but also to a fraudulent Cathohc 
university like Notre Dame that the sacred words of 
the apostle should be applied : 

"Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped 
down your fields, which by fraud has been kept back 
by you, crieth : and the cry of them hath entered into 
the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." 

W/iy do Catholics need endozu Catholic colleges 
aiid universities if our largest Catholic university is 
able to coin money? 

We have seen that the mere tuition would be more 
than sufficient to pay at least $1,200.00 to every teacher 
in Notre Dame, therefore, the question may be prop- 
erly asked: 'Why should Catholics endow^ Catholic 
colleges and universities if these institutions of learn- 
mg can be made self-supporting?" What more would 
they need beside the buildings and grounds ? It is true 
that Notre Dame could very well afford to pay over 
$1,200.00 to each teacher, but the tuition fee does not 
come solely from collegiate or university students. 
The largest number of her students is in the minim, 
preparatory and commercial courses. The number of 
her students of the collegiate department is very Hm- 
ited. W^e readily admit that a minim, preparatory and 



45 

commercial department is more than self-supporting 
with a tuition fee of $100.00 per s.^liolastic year, hut 
not so a collegiate department having courses as varied 
and thorough as those of the principal non-Catholic 
colleges and universities. The fact that non-Catholic 
universities charging a higher tuition and having many 
more pupils than Notre Dame could not meet the ex- 
penses unless they had a large endowment fund is suf- 
ficient to show that higher education is far from heriVg 
self-supporting. It is indeed true that a salary ot 
$1,200.00 a year would appear an immense sum to the 
layman-professors of Notre Dame, it is also true that 
if such a salary was given to half a dozen layman-pro- 
fessors it would create great discontentment among 
the brother and priest-professors; yet this great sal- 
ary of a New York policeman, which would shock 
Notre Dame as well as any institution of learning 
controlled by a religious Order, is not sufficient to at- 
tract thoroughly trained and cultivated teachers nor is 
$1,200.00 a year the salary of specialists holding chairs 
in the principal universities of this country over whom 
Notre Dame takes precedence. 

We insist on this very important word "specialists" 
without whom a thorough higher education in any 
branch cannot be imparted. If we take the catalogue 
of any non-Catholic university we see in the list of 
professors the subjects taught by them, but a Catholic 
university like Notre Dame, who professes in her cata- 
logues to teach Botany, Mineralogy, Geology, Zoology, 
Metallurgy, etc., moreover professes to grant Doctors' 
degrees for some remarkable work on any of these 
branches, does not have any one assigned to teach 
them. Such a university is like the Pharisees of old. 



46 

she does not enter the sanctuary of science and by her 
pretentions impHcitly beHeved by Cathohcs, who have 
full confidence in rchgions Orders, she is the cause that 
CathoHcs do not see the necessity of having endowed 
CathoHc universities of their own, where their sons 
can receive a real higher education. No wonder our 
CathoHc youth, when they leave our schools, cease to 
be self-active, and become helpless. They have not 
been taught by thoroughly trained and cultivated 
teachers and this is why scientists are not to be found 
among Catholic laymen. 

I/o2t' is it thai a fi'aiidiilent institution like Notj'e 
Dmne became our largest Catholic university? 

In answer to this question we will point out some of 
the many causes that contributed to her growth and 
also show that if she did not double or treble her actual 
number of students it is due to her unquenchable thirst 
for money which debars her from doing efficient work 
in the cause of education. 

So7ne of the causes of the growth of Notre Dame: 

1. Influence of her foiuider^ Father Sorin. 
Notre Dame was founded in 1842 by Father Sorin. 

He and the heroic little band that came with him from 
France were men of a quite different stamp from their 
degenerate successors of today. The striking person- 
ality of Sorin, the earnest piety of his collaborators, 
made a deep impression on the early students who 
helped to sing her praises and later on sent their sons 
to their Alma Mater. 

2. Influence of St. Mary's A cade niy. Not satisfied 
with founding a Catholic institution of learning for 
young men Father Sorin induced the Sisters of the 
Holy Cross— an Order quite different although bear- 




47 



ing the same name — to build an academy to foster the 
education of young ladies. The head of the Sisters, 
Mother Angela, was happily one of no less striking 
qualities than Leather Sorin. This imposing structure 
is one mile west of Notre Dame and many of those 
educated there helped to spread the reputation of this 
university and later on in life sent their sons to Notre 
Dame which they supposed to be a great institution of 
learning. 

J. Religious influence. There are many parents 
who prefer to send their children to a university sur- 
rounded by a religious atmosphere. Such was the 
cause of the founding of universities like Harvard, 
Yale, Princeton, Brown, Chicago, Northwestern, etc. 

Many Catholics who can afford it prefer to intrust 
their sons to a Catholic university in the fond hope 
that together with a thorough education in secular 
branches they will learn to be truthful, upright Catho- 
lics. Had Notre Dame to rely solely on her good 
teaching she would be almost utterly destitute of 
pupils. 

4. The beauty of Notre Dame. Strangers who visit 
this university cannot help admiring her beautiful 
grounds, fine lakes and buildings, and their Impres- 
sion is that everything is conducive to study and 
health. They naturally suppose that the authorities 
who provided such buildings and fine grounds did also 
their best to secure able and experienced teachers. 
People who have no adequate conception of university 
work judge it from the buildings, and we find this 
prejudice strengthened by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Glen- 
non, who, in his oration at the commencement exer- 
cises of 1900 speaking of the work of Catholicity in 



48 



the cause of education, states : "Its evidence is fur- 
nished in every plain and mountain-pass and battle- 
mented city of Europe, while- for America we need no 
further proof than to look around and see in the 
moonlight the noble halls and silent towers of Notre 
Dame." 

5. The Ave Ma7'ia. In Notre Dame is pubhshed a 
weekly magazine — the Ave Maria — devoted to the 
honor of the Blessed Virgin, which has a very exten- 
sive circulation among Catholics. The Ave Maria ad- 
vertises the many full courses this university offers. 
Catholics are very apt to suppose that a university 
offering so many full courses must certainly be a 
great university. They could not conceive for instance 
that the editor of the Ave Maria who resides in Notre 
Dame and who by the way is the vice-president of the 
Trustees, would advertise in this Catholic magazine a 
full course in Architecture unless there were one or 
more great architects in the Faculty. They could not 
conceive how a Catholic magazine devoted to the 
hor.or of the Blessed Mother would advertise such 
a course when Notre Dame does not have one single 
architect on her staff. As there are few universities 
offering so many full courses, besides that of Archi- 
tecture without an architect, it is natural that trusting 
Catholics would conclude that there is no better uni- 
versiy than Notre Dame to give a thorough education 
in all branches of learning. 

6. Hmiting athletes as a bait to attract students. 
It is undeniably good for any university to have a 
thoroughly equipped gymnasium and a physician 
whose business should be to prescribe for every stu- 
dent the kind and amount of exercise required either 



49 

for his health or to better develop defective organs. 
If this was done in Notre Dame it would be highly 
commendable. American students take such interest 
in athletic sports that the only course left to the col- 
lege authorities is to debar students from such sports 
if they fall behind in their studies. This wise pro- 
vision is not compatible with the spirit of Notre Dame. 
A university who should send representatives to hunt 
up athletes who have given unmistakable proofs of 
their agility and dexterity and, of course, offer induce- 
ments to enroll them among her students, would right- 
ly be held in utter contempt. One can understand that 
owing to the pride students take in the athletics of 
their university they would endeavor to strengthen 
their teams by the addition of other students able in 
this line, but this has nothing to do with the authori- 
ties of the university. It is an open secret that Notre 
Dame sends members of the Holy Cross to hunt up 
athletes and induce them to be enrolled among her 
students. It is natural that in an institution like this 
where the collegiate students are in a very limited 
number, the teams should also be made up of students 
of the preparatory department; but one cannot help 
smiling to see two universities like Chicago and that 
of the State of Illinois most ignominiously beaten, as 
happened March, 1899, in the meet at Notre Dame, 
their defeat being due to a champion in jumping, pole- 

^ vaulting and throwing — a student of the commercial 
course taking such branches as arithmetic, orthogra- 

. phy. Catholics not acquainted with university mat- 
ters reading of Notre Dame's athletic teams, her vic- 
tories, and engagements with other university teams 
are naturally led to suppose that a university which 



50 



can so successfully compete in athletics with such in- 
stitutions as Chicago and the Sta.te University of Illi- 
nois must certainly have a splendid Faculty, that could 
successfully compete with the Faculty of these uni- 
versities. 

7. No u}isavo7'y reports circulated through the press 
about Notre Dame. Newspapers are a power for good 
as well as for evil. Nothing helps so much to extir- 
pate abuses as to give them as much publicity as 
possible. Notre Dame is fully aware of the power of 
the press and while long puffs are to be read, no un- 
savory reports about her are made public. Suppose 
for instance that in the University of Chicago, or 
Northwestern, a total abstinence society should cele- 
brate some feast by going on a picnic and getting glor- 
iously drunk, such an escapade would become known 
through the press and some well meaning people 
might perhaps point out the immoral training students 
receive in such universities ; but suppose this hap- 
pened in Notre Dame, as it did happen, the public will 
never be the wiser. We do not intend to convey the 
impression that the students or professors of Notre 
Dame are immoral, but only to state that improprieties 
which would tend to lower the university in the eyes 
of the public and which would find their way in the 
press if they happened in other universities are care- 
fully kept from the notice of the public. 

8. Prestige lent to Notre Da?ne by the hierarchy 
Notre Dame has frequently been visited by the arch- 
bishops and bishops of the Church, and both papal 
delegates Monsignor SatoUi and Monsignor Martinelli 
were among her visitors. Parents were made ac- 
quainted through the Notre Dame scholastic of her 



51 

illustrious guests and it helped to confirm them in the 
belief that it is the greatness of Notre Dame that at- 
tracted these prelates. Of course these bishops and 
archbishops never meant to countenance a fraudulent 
university, they were not aware of her frauds and if 
they spoke words of praise they only meant to utter 
their approbation of Catholic education, or of a Cath- 
olic institution. 

W/iy Notre Danic does not double or treble her 
actual number of students. 

Notre Dame's fraudulent Doctors' degrees, her 
imaginary courses, her puffs, her deception are but a 
natural consequence of her grasping after gold which 
considering the state of this country might have been 
obtained in greater abundance had she pursued honest 
methods. 

Let us observe that the profit Notre Dame makes 
does not belong to the university, it belongs to the 
Order of the Holy Cross that controls her as well as 
Catholic colleges in Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin and 
Ohio. It is easy to understand why a university like 
Notre Dame, founded without any endowment fund, 
should utilize for a time her brothers and priests as 
teachers and in case of extreme necessity engage lay- 
man-professors at a very low salary. Even if these 
brothers and priests were not learned men they had 
great moral qualities which won the love and esteem 
of pupils. As time went on and the profit made by 
the university could well afiford it, the Order of the 
Holy Cross instead of utilizing only such of its mem- 
bers who happen to be particularly qualified to take 
charge of students, and associating able and experi- 
enced layman-professors making it an object for them 



52 

to join her professional staff, continued the same old 
policy. The only difference is that the former pious 
brothers gave place to a set of ignorant, lazy brother- 
professors and instead of the old time truthful and up- 
right priests, Notre Dame has today priest-professors 
not only as a rule destitute of the qualities necessary 
to form genuine college professors, but priests whose 
oral and written word is not to be relied on according 
to her document sent to the authorities of the Church. 

It is this sordid institution of learning that seriously 
informs the American public in one of her catalogues 
that ''Notre Dame with its standard of studies more 
than realizes the most sanguine expectations even of 
those who had the firmest belief in the possibilities of 
higher education in the west." 

Out of the hundreds who begin Latin in Notre 
Dame scarcely one or two, with the exception of the 
very few who prepare themselves for the priesthood, 
take the degree of Bachelor of Arts ; out of the sev- 
eral hundred who take mathematics scarcely half a 
dozen reach as far as trigonometry, and this univer- 
sity which leads pupils from the kindergarten up to 
the white light of graduating day loses almost one 
half of her pupils every y^ar. Had the Order of the 
Holy Cross confined her brother-professors to occu- 
pations more appropriate to their intellectual standing 
— to take care of the fields, cows, horses, sheep, etc. — 
had the Order confined the great majority of priest- 
professors, who have no aptitude for teaching to dis- 
charge the duties becoming their sacred character- 
preaching the Gospel, attending the sick, administer- 
ing the sacraments, and endeavoring to give examples 
of Christian perfection — had able and experienced 



layman-professors been secured at fair salaries, men 
who by their gentlemanly manners as well as their 
learning could win the love and esteem of the students, 
Notre Dame without prostituting the prestige which a 
religious Order enjoys in the eyes of Catholics would 
have made far more money and been helpful to our 
Catholic youth who would have crowded in thousands 
to her halls to study. 



CHAPTER IV. 



A brief analysis of the dociuiient of the University 
oj Notre Dame submitted to the authorities of the 
Church by Father Zahni in which the university 
proudly achnozuledges that the oral and written word 
of her Trustees^ President and Faculty is not to be 
relied on. 

Why Noti'e Dame had to submit this interesting- 
do cum ent. 

In January, 1899, a professor of Notre Dame sent a 
communication to her Trustees stating that he had 
been deceiwd by the written statements of the uni- 
versity when engaging him, he enclosed a certified 
copy of these written statements, and asked the Trus- 
tees that her written word should be made good. The 
answer he received was that his communication had 
•been referred to the president "who has exclusive au- 
thority to act in the matter." When said professor went 
to the president, he was told that his services would 
not be needed after June 15th, 1899. The professor 
sent communication after communication to the Trus- 
tees asking that the claims arising from the written 
word of the university be submitted to an archbishop 
or bishop of the Church (great friends of Notre 
Dame) offering $200.00 as a compensation for the 
judge in case the verdict was not in his favor. He 
received no written reply, but was told that "this com- 
munity allows no interference from outsiders." Cir- 
cumstances, however, compelled Notre Dame to abate 



55 



somewhat of her pride and submit to the judgment of 
the authorities of the Church who sent the professor 
the verdict together with the document of Notre 
Dame. The document was dated March 226. and was 
received by the authorities of the Church March 24, 
1900. We analyze such portions of the document 
whkh will prove of great help to Catholics in forming 
a right estimate of the high appreciation in which 
truth and honesty are held by Notre Dame. 

T/ie reason why Notre Dame was coinpelled in her 
defense to incrinihiate herself. 

The natural course Notre Dame should have pur- 
sued, if she was not guilty of having deceived the 
professor when engaging him, would have been to 
request that her letters should be produced that she 
might establish her innocence by showing the authori- 
ties of the Church that her written statements in ques- 
tion did not contain any lies. Notre Dame, however, 
could not do this, therefore her only resource left was 
to bring charges against the professor. 

If these charges are true, she was fully justified in 
dismissing him, but this would not prove that the uni- 
versity did not deceive him with false written state- 
ments when engaging him. For instance if it is true, 
as she states in her document, that there is a strong 
belief that this professor is not menl:ally or otherwise 
responsible for what he says or does ; if it is true that 
he has not been examined as to his sanity because it 
does not behoove religions of the Order of the Holy 
Cross to take the initiative in such matter, then Notre 
Dame deserves to be praised for the precautionary 
measure she took to remove a professor strongly sus- 
pected of lunacy. • 



56 



It was not necessary for Notre Dame to bring any 
further charges and it was not certainly wise to bring 
charges which she knew the professor could disprove 
with her written word. For instance, where is the 
wisdom of the Trustees of Notre Dame stating in 
their document about this professor that "the impres- 
sion seemed to be that he was a mere pretender" when 
these Trustees were fully aware of the fact that this 
professor had a testimonial of Notre Dame stating 
that "he is a university scholar, and of his ability 
there can be no question." 

Where is the wisdom of the Trustees who certify to 
the fact that this professor "is a subject of ridicule, a 
cause of insubordination among students — a man ut- 
terly unfit to have charge of students — whose services 
were retained after the first year out of a sense of 
charity," etc., when they are aware that said professor 
could produce a testimonial of Notre Dame stating 
"he can elicit much work and study from his pupils, 
he is a conscientious instructor and punctual to duty" ? 

The Trustees having brought such unnecessary 
charges against the professor were compelled to warn 
the authorities of the Church against accepting any 
previous oral or written statements of Notre Dame in 
his favor, that is to say, Notre Dame had to incrimi- 
nate herself by admitting that she always lied before, 
but, now that her interest is at stake, she tells noth- 
ing but the truth. The Trustees take special pride in 
informing the authorities of the Church that they al- 
ways lied before and the reason assigned for their 
lying is that "everything said or written here (in 
Notre Dame) in his favor tended to the end of finding 
him a place" — as if the end justifies the means. 



57 

It would be more reasonable to suppose that such 
religious liars would prefer to lie in their own interest 
rather than lie in the interest of this professor when 
recommending him for a position to an archbishop of 
the Church, to a president of a state university and 
others, still in what follows we will suppose that Notre 
Dame's document is correct. 

Breech of trust of NoUx Dame ioward parents of 
her fufils shown by her document. 

Have not parents of pupils been grossly deceived by 
this Catholic university when after paying the tuition, 
Notre Dame entrusts their sons to a man whom she 
knew to be utterly unfit to have charge of students ? 

What can pupils learn from a subject of ridicule, a 
man utterty unfit to have charge of students? Reg- 
ular habits of discipline are no less important, if not 
more so, than learning, and did not this Catholic uni- 
versity betray her sacred trust when for three consecu- 
tive years she retained the services of a professor 
whom she knew to be a cause of insubordination 
among students? 

The charity of zvhich Notre Dame boasts shozun to 
consist in her swindling pa7'ents out of $6^000.00 and 
pocketing $^^000.00. 

The reason assigned by Notre Dame for retaining 
for three years the services of such a professor to 
teach her pupils is her charity. "His services were re- 
tained after the first year out of a sense of charity." 
It may be fairly doubted whether there is any charity^ 
in retaining for three years the services of a professor 
who is unfit to have charge of students — a cause of 
insubordination among students — when the salary of 
a professor comes out of the pockets of parents who 



58 



pjid with the understanding" that their sons would be 
taught and properly trained by competent professors. 

Let us examine what Notre Dame's charity means. 

Notre Dame charges $ioo a year for her tuition. 
The pupils have, as a rule, five recitations daily, there- 
fore Notre Dame receives $20.00 for each recitation. 
This professor during his three years teaching had at 
least all together three hundred pupils, therefore 
Notre Dame received for the work of this professor a 
total of six thousand dollars. This professor was 
paid a fee of $600.00 a year, therefore he received for 
his three years teaching a total of $1,800.00. Out of 
the three years services of this professor Notre Dame 
gained the difference between the $6,000 received for 
tuition and the $1,800 she paid for teaching, that is to 
say she made a profit of $4,200.00. Supposing that 
the expense of heating the class room would amount 
during the three years to $200.00 Notre Dame would 
still make a profit of $4,000.00. 

Here we have a Catholic university which swindled 
parents of pupils out of $6,000.00, pocketed $4,000.00, 
and boasts to the authorities of the Church that she 
retained the services of this professor, whom she 
knew to be utterly unfit to have charge of students, for 
three years out of a sense of charity ! ! ! 

How much Notre Dame values the services of a 
very competent layman-professor and one utterly un- 
jit to have charge of students. 

One of the most precious informations Notre Dame 
conveyed to the authorities of the Church is the value 
she sets upon a very competent professor and one ut- 
terly unfit to have charge of students. 

The authorities of the Church are informed that if 



59 

said professor was very competent in teaching bis 
services might possibly be worth to her $600.00 a year. 

There is nothing starthng in such an information 
which is quite in keeping with the grasping propen- 
sities of our largest Catholic university, besides this 
might be inferred from Bishop Spalding's lecture in 
which he complains that the professors in our Cath- 
olic institutions of learning are still insufficiently re- 
munerated. The precious information, however, which 
neither Bishop Spalding nor any reasonable person 
could. convey is the solution of the following problem: 

If a very competent professor might possibly be 
worth $600.00 a year, how much is a professor worth 
who is a subject of ridicule, utterly unfit to have 
charge of students, a cause of insubordination among 
students ? 

Notre Dame, who in her catalogues takes prece- 
dence over the best universities of this country and 
proudly informs her patrons that, she is justly consid- 
ered one of the best universities, condescends to give 
to the authorities of the Church the solution of this 
problem. On page 3d of her document we read : ''the 
man is utterly unfit to have charge of students and his 
work here was not worth half the amount he received 
for it." 

The parents of pupils of Notre Dame may perhaps 
be amazed at the fact that Notre Dame should place 
such a low value on a very competent professor (pos- 
sibly $600.00 a year) and such a high value on one ut- 
terly unfit to have charge of students (nearly $300.00 
a year) and may perhaps question the wisdom of 
the principles of Notre Dame. If they feel inclined to 
criticise her principles they should bear in mind the 



60 



words Bishop Glennon addressed them at the com- 
mencement exercises of 1900. "It is on these broad 
principles* that Notre Dame has been builded. It 
grows with their growth, and today thousands rise to 
say to it : 'Prosper, proceed and rule.' To you, its 
friends, it looks not only for commendation, but cor- 
dial support." 

Black ingratitude of Notre Dame toward this lay- 
man frofessor who taught her Trustees, for the last 
months of his connection gratis. 

A good illustration of the broad principles of Notre 
Dame is her gratitude toward this layman-professor 
who was indeed utterly unfit to have charge of stu- 
dents, when her interest was at stake, but was deemed 
eminently fit to take charge of the instruction of Trus- 
tees of Notre Dame during the last eighteen months of 
his connection with this university. In this case at 
least, it could not be said that his services were re- 
quested and retained out of a sense of charity because 
his pupils, the Trustees, requested and received gratis 
private instruction almost daily. 

After this professor has taught his pupils the Trus- 
tees to the very last v/eek of his connection, Notre 
Dame informs the authorities of the Church that the 
case of this professor affords a warning *'to direct 
charity toward some other end hereafter than to giv- 
ing employment to a helpless or useless person because 
of pity." 

*It is not; the broad principles alcue alluded to by Bishop Glen- 
non which has made Notre Dame prosper and rule, but other 
principles rather too broad to be found in the narrow path of 
honesty. 



CHAPTER V. 



Remarks on Father ZaJnii's ''''Catholic Science and 
Catholic Scientists^''' a book which makes the Church 
appear a fi'aud^ j^uhlished^ according to this statejnent 
in his preface^ '"'in response to numerous reqiiests fro7n 
distinguished representatives of the heirarchy. 

Two of Father Zahm's blunders contrary to com- 
mon sense and Catholic teaching. 

BLUNDER NO. i. 

"All the great scientists of the world have been, 
are and ever must be men of faith, men of religions 
instincts, men who have felt on them the spell of 
Christian teaching." See page 211. 

A Catholic must agree with the teaching of the 
Church that if a man was the greatest mathematician, 
astronomer, ph3^sicist, botanist, etc., that ever lived, 
his intelligence would not suffice to make him ac- 
quainted with those supernatural truths which the 
God-man came to reveal to mankind. Moreover, it 
must be admitted as self-evident that all the super- 
natural truths revealed by our Lord to His disciples, 
while of the greatest importance for our salvation, are 
of no help whatever to make a great mathematician, 
astronomer, physicist, etc.; in other words, everything 
being equal, Archimedes would not have been a bet- 
ter mathematician had he been a holy friar instead of 
a Pagan, nor would Newton have been less proficient 
in science if, instead of being a Christian he liad been 
a Jew or a Pagan. 



62 

BLUNDER NO. 2. 

'The eminent scientists of the world, it matters not 
to what age they belong, have all been God-fearing, 
God-serving men." Page 211. 

A Catholic knows that the Pope is no more sure 
of his eternal salvation than any ordinary mortal. A 
Catholic could not deny that St. Paul must have bei;n 
right when he wrote that he chastised his body lest, 
after having preached to others, he might not be him- 
self reckoned among the reprobate, and a Catholic 
must believe that our Lord knew what He was talk- 
ing about, when He stated that many who in His 
name have prophesied, cast out devils, and worked 
miracles will have no place in His kingdom and the 
fate of Judas is an object lesson. 

If even the calling to be an apostle does not insure 
eternal salvation, is it not shocking to hear a Catholic, 
a priest — the oracle of the Catholic Church of Amer- 
ica — assure his readers that all those who have been 
called to be eminent scientists of the w^orld, whether 
before or after the foundation of the Church, are to 
be found in heaven? A Catholic, a priest, must know 
that all those who have been God-fearing, God-serv- 
ing men, it matters not to what age they belong, 
must certainly be in heaven. 

We feel sure that the Church would never approve 
of Father Zahm's addition to the litany of the saints : 
All ye eminent scientists of the world, it matters not 
to what age ye belong, Pray for us! 

Father Zahm^s eagerness to -prove absurd claims 
of the Church the cause of his erj'ors. 

Father Zahm is well versed in theology, so fa- 



miliar with theological works that he is not able to 
say positively whether the theory that Adam's body 
has been taken from some monkey has been proven 
untenable by theologians. His honest doubt showing 
his great reading in such an important subject is 
quoted from page 129 : "As to whether theistic evo- 
lution may embrace man's body, considered as sep- 
arate from and independent of the soul, it may be re- 
marked that the theory has been defended among 
others by no less an authority than the eminent Cath- 
olic naturalist and philosopher, St. George Mivart, 
and we are not aware that his position has been prov- 
en by theologians to be untenable." We must chari- 
tably suppose that Father Zahm had no intention of 
slighting the teaching of the Church, he was simply 
laboring under a strong hallucination in consequence 
of the great mental strain produced by two of the 
most herculean tasks any man could undertake, which 
he willingly undertook for the honor and glory of 
the Church. One of these tasks was to prove (see 
page 112) "that Catholics were always originators 
and pioneers in every branch of invention and dis- 
covery. Others may contribute toward the develop- 
ment of what Catholics have begun, but facile est 
addere inventis — "it is easy to add to inventions." 

This is no easy task since the fourth chapter of 
Genesis teaches us that the first originators and 
pioneers in the line of invention and discovery were 
men belonging to the ungodly race of Cain; more- 
over there were many inventors and discoverers be- 
fore the foundation of Christianity. 

The second task of no less magnitude is another 
claim of the Church stated on page 57: "We shall 



64 



endeavor to show that the sceptre of science trnly 
belongs to the Church by every title on v\^hich it is 
possible to base a claim — that history declares it, 
that the facts maintain it." 

Father Zahm musters a number of sciences before 
the eyes of his readers, points out the great scientists 
beginning with ecclesiastics just as Notre Dame does 
in her catalogue with her faculty; these ecclesiastics 
— monks and priests — are followed by good and 
pious laymen. 

Unfortunately for Father Zahm, by seeking great 
scientists only among the monks, priests and pious 
laymen, as the claim he wishes to prove in behalf of 
the Church requires, he came to the wrong conclu- 
sion that a great scientist must necessarily be a 
strong believer in Christianity, and that all eminent 
scientists vs^ere good pious men. Thus we see that 
Father Zahm's too great zeal for the Church led 
him into errors contrary to her teaching and so ab- 
surd and preposterous that the very statement of 
them is but too suggestive of the ravings of an 
imbecile. 

Nobody will ask whether Father Zahm succeeded 
in proving "that Catholics were always originators 
and pioneers in every branch of invention and dis- 
covery;" this is too ridiculous, but one may ask 
whether or not Father Zahm did show that ''the 
sceptre of Science truly belongs to the Church by 
every title on which it is possible to base a claim — 
that history declares it, that the facts maintain it." 

Well, we are not acquainted with all sciences but 
we will give some samples of Father Zahm's proofs 



65 



and the reader may infer how much rehance may be 
placed on Father Zahm's conclusions. 

A few of Father Zahm's blunders in his proof that 
"the Church has invariably taken the lead in mathe- 
matical discovery and development." (See page yS.) 

In order to prove that the sceptre of Science truly 
belongs to the Church since mathematics is a science 
Father Zahm must prove that the sceptre of mathe- 
matics truly belongs to the Church, or what amounts 
to the same, that "the Church has invariably taken 
the lead in mathematical discovery and development." 
He thus begins his proof : 

BLUNDER NO. i. 

"Arithmetic as a science owes its origin in Europe 
to the learned Gerbert." 

For the sake of logic, Father Zahm should in- 
troduce to his readers only such men who have dis- 
covered or developed branches of mathematics. The 
learned Gerbert, Pope Sylvester II (999-1003), neith- 
er discovered nor developed arithmetic as a science, 
hence whatever may be the services he rendered to 
mathematics, his name is out of place. 

BLUNDER NO. 2. 

"The first work on algebra was published in Venice 
in 1494, by a Franciscan friar, Paccioli di Borgo. He 
went as far as the equations of second degree and 
foresaw the application of algebra to geometry. His 
book served as a basis of all the works on algebra 
during the succeeding century." 

Here again Father Zahm should show that the 
Franciscan friar has either discovered or developed 



66 

algebra, and that he was not a mere compiler, other- 
wise the good friar is out of place. As a matter of 
fact, Paccioli di Borgo does not have one single origi- 
nal thought nor did he print anything which was 
not known centuries before; however, he is an honest 
man and acknowledges that he borrows. Father 
Zahm, like all pretenders and impostors, endeavors 
to impose on the creduHty of his readers by a useless 
display of a knowledge of works of which he is en- 
tirely ignorant. Thus on page 81-82 he writes: ''We 
should like to tell of the work of the pious Michel 
Chasles, of whom it was said by a contemporary ma- 
thematician that all the geometers of Europe were 
his disciples, — of that Chasles of whose w^ork the 
eminent physicist, Sir E. Sabine did not hesitate to 
say, etc., etc., etc., but we must hurry on." 

We have quoted what Father Zahm states about 
Michel Chasles because we intend to make use of 
this learned and pious Catholic, who will not likely 
be unjust toward monks and priests, nor towards 
the claim of the Church. 

The pious Michel Chasles on page 520 of his great 
work, ''Apercu historique", states that "the writings 
of Fibonacci, which in the XVI century have been the 
model and the foundation of those of Luca di Borgo 
(the Franciscan monk Paccioli), of Cardano and of 
Tartaglia, had an origin purely Arabic and originally 
Hindoo." 

From this it may be inferred that according to 
the pious Michel Chasles, all the knowledge of mathe- 
matics the Church could boast after nearly fifteen 
hundred years of existence had an origin purely 
Arabic and originally Hindoo. Surely the Church 



67 



cannot claim that she has invariably taken the lead in 
mathematical discovery and development!!! Mathe- 
matics flourished centuries before the birth of our 
Lord and was in decline in His days: some few 
mathematicians arose mainly in the Alexandrian 
school up to the fourth century, but they were not 
Christians; it flourished afterward among the Hin- 
doos, who were not Christians; it was cultivated for 
a short period by the Mahomedans, who handed it 
to the Christian world, and it is not before the six- 
teenth century that it may be properly said that 
Europe began to discover and develop mathematics. 

BLUNDER NO. 3. 

'Taccioli's work was developed by George Reisch, 
prior of the Carthusian monastery at Freiburg." 

We have seen that the pious Michel Chasles in- 
forms us that it was the writings of Fibonacci that 
were the model and foundation of those of Paccioli 
di Borgo, of Tartaglia and Cardano, but the pious 
Michel Chasles wisely refrains from mentioning with 
men like Cardano and Tartagha, the Carthusian prior 
who in his Margarita Philosophica copies a mistake 
made thousand years before, by Boetius. It is only 
by a man who like Father Zahm has no idea of great 
mathematicians that this monk could be ranked with 
the great mathematicians who discovered or de- 
veloped mathematics. 

BLUNDER NO. 4. 

"Cavalieri of the order of the Jeromites . . . . 
wrote the first approach to a treatise on the conic sec- 
tions." 



68 



Cavalieri of the order of the Jeromites is really a 
mathematician. The contributions to mathematics of 
the learned Gerbert, — Pope Sylvester II, of the Fran- 
ciscan monk, Paccioli di Borgo, of George Reisch 
prior of the Carthusian monastery at Freiburg, could 
no more be compared with the works of Cavalieri 
than the smallest of pygmies to the tallest of giants. 
However, Cavalieri was not only a good mathema- 
tician, but what is more important, a very honest and 
sincere man as his letters clearly prove, and he would 
be ashamed of the absurd claim of having written 
the first approach to a treatise on conic sections. If 
Cavalieri treated his subject geometrically, he was 
born two thousand years too late for Father Zahm 
to claim that he wrote the first approach on conic 
sections which according to the pious Michel Chasles, 
were treated geometrically in Plato's time; more- 
over, Apollonious, before the Church was founded, 
wrote his great work on conic sections which gained 
him the surname of "great geometer." If Cavalieri 
treated his subject analytically, then he was not cer- 
tainly the first to write such treatise because Des- 
cartes is the inventor of analytic geometry. Father 
Zahm who mentions so often Descartes in his book 
should be aware of this fact. 

BLUNDER NO. 5. 

'The quadrature of the circle and other puzzling 
problems were solved by the Jesuit Gregory de St. 
Vincent." 

•We can readily understand how it is possible that 
a good and learned Jesuit like Gregory de St. Vin- 
cent could fall into the mistake of believing that lie 



69 



really solved the quadrature of the circle, but what 
is above our comprehension, is how the error into 
which the Jesuit fell should be brought forward as 
a proof that the Catholic Church has invariably taken 
the lead in mathematical discovery and development. 
A writer who undertakes to prove the claims of the 
Church in the realm of mathematics should know, 
at least, that the impossibility of the quadrature of 
the circle has been proved in 1882 by such a mathe- 
matician as Lindemann. 

Father Zahm instead of expressing his sorrow to 
his readers because in his hurry he cannot tell of 
the works of the pious Michel Chasles, should have 
read his works^ at least his "Apercu'', and he would 
have noticed in a Latin note that Leibnitz is quoted 
stating that the good Jesuit's proof of the quadrature 
of the circle is but a blunder. 

BLUNDER NO. 6. 

"Father Mersenne of the order of Minims and the 
intimate friend of Descartes, was the inventor of the 
cycloid." 

If so^ Father Mersenne must have invented the 
cycloid at his mother's breast, if not sooner, since 
he was born in 1588, and in 1589, if not sooner, the 
cycloid must have been already invented, because 
in a letter of Galileo dated Feb. 24, 1639, addressed 
to his pupil and friend Cavaheri he mentions the fact 
that he had studied this curve over fifty years before, 
that is to say in 1589. However, it could be shown 
that this curve was known long before Galileo's time. 
The pious Michel Chasles in his Apercu does not 
even mention Father Mersenne in connection v/ith 



70 

the cycloid. The names he mentions are Gahleo, 
Descartes, Fermat, Roberval, TorriceUi, Pascal. 

BLUNDER NO. 7. 

''The cyclo cylindrical curve is the invention oi 
Father Laboulere." 

The pious Michel Chasles in his Apercu teaclies 
us that Roberval towards 1630 in his treatise oi the 
Indivisibles was the first one to consider this curve, 
which for this reason could not be the invention of 
Father Laboulere." 

BLUNDER NO. 8. 

"Ferrari of Bologna discovered the equations of 
fourth degree." 

Ferrari's life is far from being edifying, but this 
disreputable layman stands here in a far better light 
than the monks quoted by Father Zah^n, because 
unlike them he stands on his own merits. He is 
the real discoverer of the solution of the equations of 
fourth degree. 

After Ferrari, Father Zahm mentions ten monks, 
and informs his readers that "besides the ecclesiastics 
just referred to, we might mention a long list among 
the laity who have been as devoted to the Church 
as they were devoted to science, we shall, howevei, 
content ourselves with the names, etc." 

Ferrari was never an ecclesiastic, therefore Father 
Zahm made a blunder in referring to him as such, and 
the only reason which could be assigned, is that a 
disreputable subject like Ferrari could not be placed 
in the decent company of the laymen "who have been 
as devoted to the Church as they were to science,'' 



71 



hence the only place left for this mathematical star 
was the constellation of monks. 

It would be a loss of time to proceed to analyze 
the whole proof that ''the Church has invariably taken 
the lead in mathematical discovery and development/' 
since the only thing that can be expected from a 
man like Father Zahm utterly destitute of any knowl- 
edge of the matter and therefore utterly unfit to treat 
it, is that he will make himself a subject of ridicule to 
those who are versed in this science, although he 
may impose on such readers who are not familiar 
with it. We do not wish to convey the impression 
that there have not been great mathematicians among 
Catholics, but with all our devotion to that Church 
which is the pillar of truth, we are compelled to state 
that one single man like Abel, a Norwegian and a 
Protestant, who died when he was twenty-seven 
years old, contributed far more towards the discov- 
ery of mathematics than the seventeen monks and 
priests mentioned by Father Zahm in his proof. 

Does the Church, in the present time, take the 
lead in mathematical discovery and development? 

Taking into consideration the fact that there are 
more Catholics than Protestants in the world, we 
must acknowledge that, although there are eminent 
Catholic mathematicians, Protestants are contribut- 
ing more towards the discovery and development of 
mathematics. 

Does this prove that Protestantism is a better re- 
ligion than Catholicism? 

On this ground we might as well infer that be- 
cause Moses, according to the Bible, w^as educated 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, when there was 



72 

very little science among the Jews, the degrading 
religion of the Egyptians was by far better than the 
worship of the true God. On this ground we might 
as well infer that because Athens with a population 
not amounting to one-thirtieth of that of New York 
City contributed more during less than one century 
towards literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, 
than the whole continent of America from the mo- 
ment that Columbus discovered it to the present 
time, therefore the Pagan religion of the Athenians 
must be superior to that of Catholics and Protestants. 
The fact is that the development of science, literature, 
arts, mechanical inventions, and the natural resources 
of a country may perhaps be a sign of its mental 
and physical activity, but by no means a sure test of 
the truths of its religion. 

Father Zahm's contradiction in his proof that the 
sceptre of natural science belongs to the Church. 

The Paulist Father, George M. Searle, ranked by 
Father T^^hvc^ in his book among the great scientists 
of the world, states in reference to natural science on 
page 283 of "Plain Facts for Fair Minds", that "Cath- 
olics have perhaps not emphasized or cultivated nat- 
ural science ,in proportion to their number, so much 
as others." 

Father Zahm, however, states on page 96-97, "The 
reader is surely prepared, from what we have al- 
ready said regarding the other sciences, to hear it 
stated that it was Catholics too, who were the first 
to take the initiative in the study of nature. Botany, 
zoology, geology, mineralogy, seem always to have 
exerted a peculiar fascination over the minds of the 
children of Holy Church. We may recall the rap- 



73 



turous delight and the impassioned eloquence of a 
St. Francis of Assisi, of a St. Bernard, or of a Father 
Faber, when discoursing on the beauties and 
grandeur of the works of God, as displayed in the 
natural world." 

Neither the impassioned eloquence of a St. Fran- 
cis of Assisi nor the fascination which natural science 
seemed to have exerted over the minds of the children ' 
of Holy Church could prove that Catholics were the 
first to take the initiative in the study of nature be- 
cause Catholics have been anticipated by Heathens, 
as Fatlier Zahm acknowledges on page 103, where 
M^ read that the works of Aldrovandus, Bufifon and 
Daubenton "must ever be regarded of such impor- 
tance toward the development of zoology, as to en- 
title their authors to be ranked with Aristotle, as 
founders of the science." As Aristotle lived centuries 
before the Church, Heathens were the first to take 
the initiative in the study of nature. 

Father Zahni's blunders concerning Galileo's 
achievements in his proof that the sceptre of astron- 
omy truly belongs to the Church. 

Father Zahm on page 71 states that "the famo:is 
Gerbert, Pope Sylvester H and Friar Bacon, were 
the great astronomical lights of the tenth and thir- 
teenth centuries. Indeed, nearly every astronomer 
of note for the first fifteen centuries of the Church's 
history was an ecclesiastic." 

On page ']2 he states : "The annals of astronomy 
in subsequent times tell the same story. Those who 
contributed most to the advance of astronomical 
science — those who achieved most marked distinc- 
tion for their brilliant discoveries — were Catholics, 



74 



It was Galileo Galilei, about whom so many romances 
have been written — Galileo, the friend and protege 
oi cardinals and popes, who, imaginative historians 
would have us believe, were his persecutors — who in- 
vented the telescope, which, with a few discoveries 
he soon made^ entirely revolutionized the science of 
astronomy." 

We do not wish to show how much truth or rather 
falsehood there is in Father Zahm's statement that 
"indeed nearly every astronomer of note for the first 
fifteen centuries was an ecclesiastic." Those ac- 
quainted with the history of this science are aware 
how much Ptolomy, a Heathen 150 A. D., the Hin- 
doos and Mahomedans, have contributed toward 
astronomical science. We confine ourselves to Father 
Zahm's blunders in regard to Galileo. 

BLUNDER NO. i. 

Why should Father Zahm be guilty of such an 
amazing blunder as to claim the invention of the tele- 
scope for Galileo, when it is a well-known fact that 
the telescope was invented by a Dutchman? Galileo 
himself acknowledges it in his work II Saggiatore. 

BLUNDER NO. 2. 

Newton, a non-Catholic, revolutionized astronomy 
by discovering gravitation. The necessary data were 
furnished him by Kepler's laws, which were the re- 
sult of the powerful scientific imagination of Kep- 
ler, a non-Catholic, based on his own astronomical 
observations as well as on those of Tycho Brahe, a 
non-Catholic. 

The Abbe Picard with the measurement of the 
meridian furnished to Newton the means of verifying 



75 

the fact that the laws of gravitation fully explain the 
relation between the earth and the moon. It was Gali- 
leo's discoveries in the realm of dynamics — of which 
he is the founder — that were of the greatest help to 
Newton in revolutionizing astronomy. 

The astronomical discoveries of Galileo had no in- 
fluence whatever in the discovery of the law of gravi- 
tation, which revolutionized astronomy. 

Some of Father Zahm^s blunders in his -proof that 
the sceptre of -physical science truly belongs to the 
Church. 

On page 82 we read : "In the various departments 
of physics we are again indebted to children of the 
Church, for not only taking the initiative, but also 
for placing the landmarks of the science. It was 
Leonardo da Vinci, and subsequently Galileo and 
his school — Torricelli, Viviani, Borelli, Castelli, Mer- 
senne, and Gassendi, the last three of whom were 
ecclesiastics — who created those branches of the 
science known as mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, 
and hydro-dynamics. They were the first to cast 
aside the traditions of the ancients, and to substitute 
experiment for the dicta of Aristotle and the teachers 
of the Alexandrian school. Before Galileo's time, 
little was known about the laws of solids and fluids 
in motion. But the scholars just mentioned took the 
matter in hand, and performed their work so well, 
that they left comparatively little for subsequent in- 
vestigators to accomplish." 

BLUNDER NO. i. 

We are not indebted to the children of the Church 
for the creation of the branch of that science known 



76 



as hydrostatics, because it was created by Archime- 
des, centuries before the Church was founded. 

BLUNDER NO. 2. 

Archimedes is called also the founder of mechanics 
because he created statics^ a branch of mechanics, 
hence it could not honestly be said that we are in- 
debted to the children of the Church for the creation 
of mechanics. 

BLUNDER NO. 3. 

The works of Huyghens, Newton, Euler, D'Alem- 
bert, Lagrange, Jacobi and others give the lie to 
Father Zahm when, speaking about the laws of solids 
and fluids in motion, he states of Galileo and his 
school that they left comparatively little for subse- 
quent investigators to accomplish. Any reasonable 
person will suppose that Galileo and subsequent in- 
vestigators to the present time have still left much 
for future investigators to accomplish. 

BLUNDER NO. 4. 

On page 60, Father Zahm tells us that "we owe 
the experimental method of study which has con- 
tributed so materially to the advancement of natural 
and physical science, among others, to Gerbert, after- 
v/ard Pope Sylvester II. — born A. D. 920; died 1003." 
On page 64, he informis us that this experimental 
method, "introduced by the monks of the Middle 
Ages, and continued by their successors, it was later 
on employed by the professors of science in the uni- 
versities of Italy and other countries, until the time 
of Galileo and his school, when it may be said to have 
reached its culmination." 



77 



Therefore it is not true that Leonardo da Vinci and 
Galileo with his school half ecclesiastics "were t!ie 
first to cast aside the traditions of the ancients, and 
to substitute experiments for the dicta of Aristotle, 
and the teachers of the Alexandrian school." Father 
Zahm's idea as expressed on page 64, that Galileo 
was indebted to Pope Sylvester II, and monks of 
the Middle Ages, may be edifying to simple and pious 
readers, but in reality it tends to turn this Pope and 
these monks into ridicule. One might ask: If Gali- 
leo owes his discoveries to the experimental method 
and this method was known six hundred years before, 
why did not these monks^ so numerous in the Mid- 
dle Ages, with plenty spare time, instead of teaching 
others how to make discoveries, make systematical 
discoveries themselves? Galileo alone did more to- 
ward systematic investigation than all the monks of 
the preceding six hundred years. 

BLUNDER NO. 5. 

Father Zahni^s ignorance of the real greatness of 
Galileo. 

Father Zahm taught Physics in Notre Dame and 
seeing in the text books a chapter devoted to mechan- 
ics, he supposed mechanics to be a department of 
Physics. This mistake is natural in a person who, 
like Father Zahm, being entirely unacquainted with 
the higher branches of mathematics, is incapable of 
understanding any of the standard books on mechan- 
ics. Although it would be absolutely impossible for 
Father Zahm to read "Celestial Mechanics" — the 
grand work of Laplace on astronomy — the mere title 
should have suggested him the idea that mechanics 



78 



is more than a department of Physics. It is physics, 
astronomy, chemistry and all sciences dealing with 
matter which are departments of mechanics. 

Archimedes created statics, Galileo dynamics, these 
two branches constitute mechanics; hydrostatics and 
hydro-dynamics are mechanics applied to the equil- 
ibrium or motion of fluids. 

Galileo, although indirectly, powerfully contributed 
to the development of mathematics so necessary to 
the development and application of mechanics. 

The geometr}^ of the ancients used by Newton has 
been superseded by the integration of differential 
equations; however, it is highly probable that as 
mathematics is now progressing, new and more ex- 
peditive methods will be found to make a wider ap- 
plication of dynamics than is possible at the present 
time. 

However long may be the life of mankind, how- 
ever numerous the great discoverers, however large 
the number of secrets wrested from nature by the 
application of dynamics, Gahleo's name will always 
shine conspicuous as the founder of this science — 
the mistress, the queen of all sciences, which have 
for object the study of phenomena of the material 

world. 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

We have pointed out a few of Father Zahm's blun- 
ders in his claim that the sceptre of science truly be- 
longs to the Church. We entertain the gravest doubt 
whether from the foundation of the Church to the 
present time, there have been three men who could 
assert that they published a book dealing with sci- 
ence, ''in response to numerous requests from distin- 



79 



guished representatives of the hierarchy." It is difficult 
for any one to believe that distinguished representa- 
tives of the hierarchy of America could have shown 
in this instance so little judgment, and in reading the 
patent historical lies in ''Catholic Science and Catho- 
lic Scientists'', one would be inclined not only to 
question the judgment, but even the honesty of the 
many distinguished representatives of the hierarchy 
who requested its publication. 

We analyze one of these patent historical lies. 



CHAPTER VI. 



leather ZahiJi's patent historical lie about the case 
of Galileo. 

On page 190, we read: 

"The enemies of the Church had until recently been 
fond of.bringing up the case of Galileo as a "martyr 
of science," but, in the light of recent research 
on this subject, they have been forced to drop the 
case as being without foundation in fact. The truth 
is that all the martyrs of science — and there have been 
many — have met their persecutors and their execu- 
tioners outside of the Church. All the Galileos tl'.ai 
authentic history tells us of, all those who have 
sufifered for the cause of science, were those, and those 
only, who were brought before the tribunal of the 
Reformation, or who were persecuted at the instiga- 
tion of men who were the upholders of principles 
which the Reformation endorsed and promulgated." 

If Father Zahm had a particle of the honesty he 
attributes to the enemies of the Church, who drop 
a case when documents are presented showing it 
has no foundation in fact, he could not publish sucli 
a glaring historical lie concerning Galileo's case, when 
the original documents of the Inquisition relating to 
Galileo are now to be found in the Vatican library — 
a gift of Pope Pius IX, after their recovery from Paris 
through the efforts of Count Rossi. 



81 

The causes that led to the condemnation of the 
Copernican system. 

Copernicus, a Polish priest, published a book dedi- 
cated to the Pope, in which he upheld the system of 
the diurnal rotation of the earth around its axis, be- 
sides the annual around the sun; a system taught 
by Pythagorean philosophers, but superseded by 
Ptolemy 150 A. D. which made the earth immovable 
in the center of the universe. Aristotle had made the 
earth the center of the universe, and as theology 
made great use of the philosophy of this great rtlan, 
it is natural that the Copernican system would be 
shocking to those who were thoroughly imbued with 
the Aristotelian tenets, and it is for this reason that 
the Copernican system was condemned in 1616 by 
the theologians of the Holy Ofhce as "absurd and 
false in philosophy." 

Moreover, in the Bible we read that the sun stopped 
at the command of Joshua, and there are many other 
expressions leading us to suppose that it is the sun that 
moves and not the earth, and theologians were con- 
vinced that the authoritative tradition of the Church 
upheld the literal meaning of the Bible ,and therefore 
the Copernican system was condemned by Holy Office 
as heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy 
Scripture. 

Another powerful motive led men to consider such a 
system as subversive to the ideas of Christianity. Men 
of a rather pious and contemplative mind accustomed 
by their philosophy as well as ways of understanding 
the Bible to consider the earth as the center of the 
v/hole universe, and man the greatest of beings for 
whom earth, planets, sun and stars were created, 
while thanking God, who did everything for man, 



82 

could reconcile their minds more easily to the awful 
mystery of the Incarnation — the very foundation of 
Christianity. But when an apostate endowed with 
powerful imagination and talent, basing himself on 
the Copernican system, without the help of telescopes 
wrote of the stars as suns surrounded by planets in- 
habited by rational beings, then the minds of those 
pious people came to the conclusion that the great- 
ness of man would be impaired by such a system. 
The possibility of an immense number of worlds in- 
habited by rational beings may indeed send a thrill 
of enthusiasm through some religious persons of this 
age, but to people not accustomed to such thoughts, 
such a possibility appeared simply a paradox and if 
propounded by a heretic, a dangerous heresy. Thus 
Girordano Bruno, the apostate monk, with his theo- 
ries based on the Copernican system, contributed un- 
knowingly to its condemnation. 

Condemnation of the Copernican system^ Galileo^ s 
duty as a Catholic not to submit to the decree of the 
Holy Office^ should have appealed to the Pope. 

Galileo began by giving mortal ofifense to the Aris- 
totelians in 1589-91 while teaching in the University 
of Pisa, where from her leaning tower he gave an 
ocular demonstration of the unreliability of some of 
the tenets of their philosophy. 

Although he held the Copernican system still out 
of fear of ridicule rather than persecution he tauglit 
the Ptolemaic system in the University of Padua. 
When with the aid of the telescope in 1608 he discov- 
ered Jupiter's satellites revolving around that planet, 
illustrating the Copernican system which teaches that 
the earth revolves around the sun, encouraged by 
the flattering reception his discoveries received, he 



1 



83 



thought he could without ridicule uphold it as he 
did in his work, "On the Spots of the Sun." His great 
fame added more weight to a theory in itself far more 
reasonable and simple, therefore more probable than 
the Ptolemaic system. Having been informed that 
CastelH, a Benedictine monk, his pupil and warm 
friend, while dining with the grand-duke of Tuscany, 
had defended his theory against the imputation of 
being unscriptural, he wrote him a letter dated Dec. 
21, 1613, in which he undertook with the help of the 
Fathers of the Church to set forth the relation of 
Scripture to science. Galileo's letter was laid before 
the Holy Ofhce by a Dominican monk in Feb., 161 5, 
and Galileo stands accused by this monk among other 
things of the crime of finding fault with the whole 
philosophy of Aristotle of which the scholastic theo- 
logy makes so much use. Galileo was by no means 
one who wished to raise theological discussions and 
if he entered into this subject it is because he had 
been dragged into by his opponents. His explana- 
tion of the miracle performed at the request of Joshua, 
which he regards as a confirmation of his theory, may 
be entirely wrong, but his beliefs in religious matters 
were orthodox and it is hard to understand how 
the Dominican monk could accuse Galileo's school 
of the most extravagant errors concerning the attri- 
butes of God. 

It may be probably on account of the information 
Galileo received, that the Holy Office was going to 
pass judgment on the Copernican system, that he 
repaired to Rome, in Dec, 1615, where he was cor- 
dially received and eagerly listened to; however, his 
plan of preventing the condemnation of that system 



84 

met with signal failure. On Feb. 24, 1616, the Holy 
Office proscribed the proposition that the sun is im- 
movable in the center of the universe as absurd and 
false in philosophy, and formally heretical because 
expressly contrary to Holy Scripture; the proposition 
that the earth is not the immovable center of the uni- 
verse and that it rotates daily is proscribed as "being 
absurd and false in philosophy, and at least erroneous 
as to faith." Galileo was ordered not to hold, teach 
or defend the condemned propositions and he prom- 
ised to do so. Had Galileo been as much of a man 
as he was a scientist, had he had the courage of his 
convictions, had he been a conscientious Catholic, he 
would have won the imperishable fame of bearing 
witness to truth, he would have saved himself from 
the unpleasant consequences of his cowardly submis- 
sion, and last, but not least, he would have spared the 
Church an untold amount of unjust criticism caused 
by the folly of the theologians of the Holy Ofhce 
v/liich is but a fallible tribunal. 

Galileo should have observed that neither the 
Church nor a tribunal of the Church has any jurisdic- 
tion in matters of philosophy as such, hence the learned 
theologians had exceeded their authority in condemn- 
ing the two propositions as "absurd and false in phil- 
osophy," and he as a Catholic and as a philosopher, 
did not intend to refuse his assent to the Copernican 
system, merely on the ground that it was condemned 
as "being absurd and false in philosophy" by theolog- 
ians of the Holy Office. 

Concerning the condemnation of the Copernican 
system as being heretical because expressly contrary 
to many texts of Holy Scripture, and their interpre- 



85 



tatlon by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the 
Church; Galileo might have remarked that God did 
not intend to teach the science of astronomy through 
the medium of the sacred writers and it was far more 
natural that they should use only popular expressions, 
such as the sun sets and the sun rises, and the inter- 
pretations of such texts by Holy Fathers and Doctors 
should not deter a Cath'olic scientist from studying 
such questions scientifically, the more so that such 
interpretations do not constitute the formal teach- 
ing of the Church — the only authorized interpreter of 
the word of God. For instance although it would 
appear that according to the Bible the earth has four 
corners. Catholics studied the figure of the earth and 
discovered its rotundity. On better thought he 
might have added that Joshua's miracle neither proves 
the Copernican nor the Ptolemaic system. The histor- 
ical fact that the sacred writer intended to convey us 
is that the children of Israel saw the sun and the moon 
occupying the same position during their pursuit of 
the enemy, a miracle which God in His infinite wis- 
dom and power might have performed in a thousand 
different ways, one of which might have been to move 
that portion of the light necessary to illuminate tlie 
earth or a small part of it in such a way that the sun 
and the moon should be constantly seen at the same 
time after Joshua gave his order. Under such circum- 
stances he could not, as a Catholic, promise that he 
would hold the Copernican system as heretical, unless 
he was shown an authoritative interpretation of the 
Church of the texts in question and therefore he ia 
tended to lay his appeal before the Pope as the head 
of the Church. 



86 

Necessary consequences of Galileo^ s appeal to the 
Pope, 

What we are going to state may appear fanciful to 
a non-Catholic, but not so to a Catholic who knov/s 
that if the Church cannot err in matters pertaining 
to faith and morals^ it is not due to the wisdom of 
Popes or bishops, but to the assistance of the Spirit 
of Truth, and if proofs were needed, the Copernicai 
system could be rightly regarded as a tangible one. 

The personal opinion of Popes and bishops must 
have been that such system was certainly false, if not 
heretical, still the Church never decided on this matter. 
It might be objected that since the personal opinion 
of the Pope coincided with that of the theologians 
of the Holy Office, Galileo would have been told by 
Paul V to submit to the decree of the Holy Office, 
and thus he would have gained nothing by his appeal. 
It is true that although the Pope did not affix his 
signature to the decree of the Holy Office, still he 
thought it correct, but it is also true that it is scarcely 
probable that the Pope would have told Galileo to 
submit, for the simple reason that he was too well 
aware of the fact that Galileo might have answered 
him that the personal opinion of the Pope is not a 
rule of faith and Catholics are not bound to accept 
the personal opinions of Popes. What we state is 
genuine Catholic doctrine as may be seen on page 
3S-39 of the charming book, 'Tlain Facts for Fair 
Minds" of the Paulist Father, George M. Searle : 

"Further — and this is an important and much mis- 
apprehended point — it would be an enormous mis- 
take to suppose that the Pope is considered infallible, 
even on matters of faith, in his ordinary conversa- 



87 

tion; nor is he believed to be so in preaching; nor 
necessarily in his writings concerning matters of re- 
ligion. 

"In order that he should be infallible, it is necessary 
that he should act formally as the teacher of the 
whole Churchy as the successor of the apostles; and 
practically we may say it is necessary that his teach- 
ing should not be given by word of mouth, but in 
writing, in a regular document; for if he merely spoke, 
some uncertainty would exist as to what he actually 
said, whatever means might be taken to report it." 

Before giving his verdict, Paul V would naturally 
have ordered a thorough investigation in order to 
know whether a Catholic could lawfully hold the two 
propositions condemned by the Holy Ofhce. By so 
doing he would have ascertained that the Church had 
not given an authoritative explanation of the texts in 
question, and as the interpretation of the Fathers 
and Doctors of the Church does not constitute the 
formal teaching of the Church, it would have been 
made patent that a Catholic could hold the two prop- 
ositions condemned by the mistaken tribunal of the 
Holy OflEice. Of course the Pope had theoretically 
the power of giving, in his capacity as head of the 
Church, a formal explanation of the sacred texts in 
question, but a Catholic is too well aware of the fact 
that when the Pope acts in his capacity he is only 
an instrument in the hands of God, who, in His di- 
vine economy does not allow that formal explana- 
tions should be given unless there is a real need of 
it, therefore from the fact that up to the present time 
no formal explanation has been given, we may infer 
that Paul V would have refrained from doing so, 



88 

The only conclusion he would have reached is, that 
the theologians had been grossly mistaken, and he 
would have repealed their condemnation of the two 
propositions in question. Galileo would have left 
Rome rejoining, the Catholic world would have been 
edified, and the persecution of Galileo would be a 
subject unknown to history. 

Galileo^ s further downfall from cowardly denial 
to -perjury. 

After having promised that he would neither hold, 
teach nor defend the two propositions condemned by 
the theologians of the Holy Office in January, 1632. 
he published his work "Dialogo dei due massimi S:s- 
temi del mondo," in which he compares the Coperni- 
can with the Ptolemaic system, and although he does 
not decide in favor of either it is evident that he fa^-- 
ored the Copernican system and the ironical submis- 
sion in his preface to the decree of the Holy Office 
is more than sufficient to show the great respect in 
which he held it. 

This book was hailed with the greatest enthusiasm, 
but the sale was forbidden in Augiist, and Galileo, 
close upon his seventieth year, summoned October ist 
to Rome, by Urban VHI, whither he had to go, and 
arrived there February, 1633. He was kindly treated 
by the Inquisition, racks and dungeons being mere 
fables. This is the situation of the two parties. Tho 
judges thought him guilty of holding, teaching and 
defending an heretical theory, which he had promised 
not to hold^ teach or defend. Galileo on the other 
hand, would most solemnly lie protesting that he 
pever held the Copernican system after its condem- 
L.cfC. 



89 



nation in i6i6, and that his book clearly shows on 
what weak basis the Copernican system stands. 

On the 22nd of June, 1633, on his knees touching 
the Gospel, thus attesting the sincerity of his soul, he 
read his recantation in the Church of the Minerva. 
He was condemned as 'Vehemently suspected of her- 
esy" to recite once a week for three years the seven 
penitential psalms, and to incarceration at the pleas- 
ure of the tribunal.* 

He was allowed to leave Rome for Sienna where 
he lived with his friend Piccolomini, the archbishop 
of that city, until in December, he was permitted to 
leave for Florence where in his villa at Arcetri, he 
spent the eight remaining years of his life in strict 
confinement prescribed to him, and brought forth his 
best work on Dynamics. There in January, 1642, the 
year in which Sir Isaac Newton was born, died Gali- 
leo, who himself was born the very day on which 
Michelangelo died. 

Reasons of the cowardice oj Galileo. 

Galileo was not sincere in his recantation as may 
be seen in his letter one month later, dated Sienna, 
July 23, 1633, written to a friend to use his influence 
to free him from his troubles, which he enumerates : 

*The Inquisition in Rome is a quite different ecclesiastical tri- 
bunal from the Spanish Inquisition which was rather a state than 
Church institution. Tae Church existed lon^ before such discipli- 
nary tribunals, and with or without them she will exist as long 
as mankind. While faith and morals are unchangeable the disci- 
pline of the Church has no rigid fixity, and changes to suit the 
exigencies of the age. As to the use of corporal punishment for 
the crime of apostasy as far as we are aware, the opinion of the 
Catholics of today coincides with the wish of Cardinal Gibbons 
concerning religious intolerance in this country, "that religious 
intolerance may never take root in our favored land; may the 
only king to force our conscience be the King of Kings; may the 
only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or misbelief 
be the prison of a troubled conscience, and: may our only motive 
for embracing truth be not the fear of man but the iQve ot tyutl^ 
and of God." 



90 



"they were all brought upon him for those demerits 
of his, known to everybody except those who had 
judged him worthy of this and greater punishment." 

Two reasons may be assigned sufficient to explain 
Galileo's conduct. In the first place Galileo did not 
cultivate truthfulness for its own sake. In a letter to 
Kepler, he acknowledges that fear of ridicule was 
the only motive that restrained him from publicly 
avowing the Copernican system. While it is only 
under some pecuHar circumstances that a man is 
bound to publicly bear witness to truth, under no 
circumstances is he allowed to uphold what is not 
true, still we see that Galileo was publicly teaching 
in Padua the Ptolemaic system when he was con- 
vinced of its falsehood. This is but one instance of 
the weakness of his character which could not be 
compared with that of a Newton or Pascal. His 
character was further weakened by his openly disre- 
garding the highest laws of morality. While teach- 
ing in Padua he publicly lived with a Venetian wo- 
man called Marina Gamba, by whom he had three 
children, who married another man after Galileo left 
that university for Florence. It is true that he was 
a good father to his children, and that his life after- 
ward was regular, still it may be fairly doubted 
whether it was for conscience sake that he left the 
mother of his children instead of marrying her. The 
whole tenor of his life must appear to an unpreju- 
diced mind as an eminently practical one, not only 
in a scienific sense but even as the word practical is 
taken by men of the world. 

He had no objection with his keen irony and sar- 
casm aided, as a rule, by powerful arguments, to 



91 

encounter inveterate prejudices, and thus win the 
applause of the world^ but he had not the sHghtest 
desire of exposing himself to ridicule and much less 
to the imaginary danger of loss of life or liberty for 
the sake of truth. Thus when the hour of trial came, 
when he was notified in 1616 that he should not hold, 
teach or defend the Copernician system because heret- 
ical, his previous habits had already predisposed him 
to fail to do his duty not only as a scientist but as a 
Catholic, he denied science and renounced through 
fear the most precious gift a man possesses — his 
reason and his religious convictions. 

It seems as if Providence wished to give Galileo 
another chance to retrieve his past error by openly 
testifying to the truth before the Inquisition, and, by 
appealing to the Pope, be the means of having the 
stupid decree of the Holy Ofhce repealed. Instead 
of profiting by this opportunity, like Peter he denied 
the truth and his religious and scientific convictions 
on oath .,and suffered the consequences of his apos- 
tacy for the remaining years of his life. 

Did the deci'ee of the Holy Office have any harm- 
ful influence toward retarding the progress of astron- 
o?ny among Catholics. 

We observe that from the moment the Copernican 
system was condemned as "absurd and false in 
philosophy," it was discouraged as a scientific 
hypothesis ; besides, having been condemned as 
heretical a Catholic could not conscientiously hold 
a heresy as an hypothesis. It is true that a 
Catholic scientist must know that the Holy Office 
is not a competent tribunal to judge about the ab- 
surdity and falsehood of a scientific proposition, it is 



92 

also true that a Catholic scientist must know that 
he is not bound to hold that a proposition is heretical 
because it is declared to be so by the Holy Office, still 
Catholic scientists might not have liked to have any 
dealings with the Inquisition, who after Galileo's 
condemnation sent a warning to many places of what 
had occurred in Rome for disregarding her decree 
and thus the progress of astronomy might indeed be 
retarded. On the other hand, the great criticism the 
treatment of Galileo provoked amiong Catholics might 
lead us to suppose that any other Catholic astronomer 
holding that system would not have been molested 
by the Inquisition, and the fact that we know of no 
other persons who had to recant for the sin of hold- 
ing such heretical system, would lead us to suppose 
that this decree had become harmless, having spent 
all its strength and power on Galileo. Howevc;, 
the right answer could only be given by a thorough 
astronomer after having made a careful study of 
Catholic astronomers subsequent to Galileo. 

Were not Paul V, Urdan VIII and all subsequent 
Popes, until the decree of the Holy Office condemn- 
ing the Copernican system was repealed, guilty of 
laxity in performing their duty as heads of the 
Church? 

It was in virtue of such decree of 1616 that Galileo 
was tried in 1633, and it looks rather anomalous to 
see that a Catholic could have been tried in Rome 
for an opinion which is not heretical and still be con- 
demned "as vehemently suspected of heresy" with 
the full knowledge and consent of the Pope. The 
fact that Galileo was never confined in dungeons or 
tortured has nothing to do with the question; there 



93 



are mental anxieties which are more painful than 
bodily sufferings, and the mere condemnation itself 
as being vehemently suspected of heresy, when he 
knew he was no heretic, must certainly have affected 
Galileo deeply. An intelligent Catholic, while deplor- 
ing this historical fact^ could not even conceive hov 
it is possible that this fact could be brought as a 
proof against the infallibility of the Church. 

Now it is but natural to ask the question : ''Would 
it not have been the duty of the Pope, Paul V, to ses* 
that the decree of 1616 of the Holy Office thus em- 
powering the Inquisition to proceed against anv 
Catholic as a heretic for disregarding it, should be 
in strict conformity with the formal teaching oi the 
Church?" 

The fact that the theologians of the Holy Office in 
their condemnation of the two propositions charac- 
terized them also as "absurd and false in philosophy/' 
was it not a sure sis^n that their minds were already 
biased by their preconceived philosophical notions? 

We readily admit that Paul V may have shared 
the prejudices of the theologians of the Holy Office, 
but this does not alter the question, which in this 
case may be thus asked : Was not Paul V in duty 
bound to see whether a personal conviction of his 
own was in strict accordance with the formal teach- 
ing of the Church before allowing that a Catholic 
could be tried for the crime of heresy for disregard- 
ing it? 

Of course we are convinced that any Catholic, not 
to speak of a man like Galileo, who would have de- 
fied the personal conviction of the Pope and the 
decree of the Holy Offfce, protesting at the same time 



94 

his willingness to submit, provided he was shown 
the formal teaching of the Church in this matter, or 
that the Pope acting in his official capacity would 
uphold such decree, such a Catholic, instead of being 
burned at the stake, as many writers fancy would 
have happened to Galileo had he not recanted, would 
have been the means of having such decree repealed. 

If Urban VIII had done what Paul V neglected 
to do, he would have conferred a far greater benefit 
on Galileo than by granting him a pension, and would 
have spared an untold amount of criticism to the 
Church, which, unfortunately, will last to the end of 
time. What we have said of these two Popes also 
applies to the subsequent Popes who did not repeal 
this decree, because the Inquisition had, theoreti- 
cally, the power of proceeding against any Catholic 
who disregarded it, until it was repealed. Therefore 
it would appear that these Popes were really guilty 
of neglecting a duty incumbent to their office; hov/- 
ever, we speak under correction."^' 

How Father Zahni's book, '^Catholic Science and 
Catholic Scientists, ^^ might he used in the future to 
dishonor the Church and hierarchy. 

If a writer should publish an article entitled "A 
further evidence of the bigotry and unscrupulous- 
ness of the Romish Church" and should endeavor to 
base his proof on ''Catholic Science and Catholic 
Scientists," a book published in 1893 by Father Zahm 
''in response to numerous requests from distinguished 
representatives of the hierarchy," as stated in his 

*Tliis reasoning was submitted to a theologian of this country 
for the object of pointing out any mistalje. In answer he re- 
ferred us to another theologian for the special reason that he had 
made a study of the matter, who, however, did not reply to our 
inquiries. 



95 



preface, such an article would rightly be disregarded 
by the American public who could not believe that 
men like Cardinal Gibbons or Bishop Spalding would 
ever request Father Zahm to publish such a book or 
countenance the historical lies contained in it; how- 
ever, a hundred years hence a writer might publish 
such article and substantiate its title by the follow- 
ing reasons : 

First. Had Father Zahm lied when in his preface 
he stated he published his book "in response to 
numerous requests from distinguished representa- 
tives of the hierarchy," the hierarchy would have pro- 
tested, but there is no evidence of any protest on the 
part of the hierarchy, therefore his statement in his 
preface must be accepted. 

Second. Had the hierarchy protested. Father 
Zahm would not have become the head of his Order 
in this country, nor would he have been honored 
with the marked distinction of entertaining for a 
week, as his own personal guest. Cardinal Martinelli, 
then Papal Delegate, nor would other honors have 
been bestowed on him. 

Third. Only bigoted, narrow-minded and unscru- 
pulous persons could send numerous requests to 
Father Zahm to publish so many absurd claims of 
the Church — so many historical lies — therefore the 
fact that this priest received numerous requests from 
the distinguished representatives of the hierarchy to 
publish such a book tends to show that the archbish- 
ops and bishops of America toward the close of the 
nineteenth century must have been men utterly desti- 
tute of any love of truth. 

How could this charge be answered at a time 



AUG 171901 

96 

when the names of Gibbons and Spalding will 
not perhaps be so fresh in the memory of readers? 

Had Paul V made a thorough investigation of the 
two propositions condemned by the Holy Office in 
the decree of 1616, which warranted the Congrega- 
tion of the Index to forbid all books teaching the 
Copernican system, and in virtue of which the Inqui- 
sition was empowered to proceed against any Cath- 
olic holding such system, this Pope would have 
spared the Church the plausible pretext of her ene- 
mies that she is opposed to the progress of science. 

Had Urban VIII, instead of bestowing a pension 
on Galileo, made a thorough investigation of the 
decree of 1616 before summoning Gahleo to Rome 
to answer the charge of heresy, this Pope would 
have spared the Church the plausible pretext of her 
enemies that she was the enemy and persecutor of 
great scientists. 

Had the hierarchy of America promptly protested 
against Father Zahm's statement that he published 
his book, "Catholic Science and Catholic Scientists," 
''in response to numerous requests from distinguished 
representatives of the hierarchy," the hierarchy might 
have spared the Church the plausible pretext of her 
future enemies that she is not only opposed to truth, 
that she not only countenances falsehoods, but what 
is far worse, that numerous distinguished archbish- 
ops or bishops requested a priest, a member of a 
religious Order, to publish in her glory and defense 
absurd claims and damnable historical lies. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



028 343 282 8 



